Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[MADAM SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

BRITISH RAILWAYS (NO. 4) BILL (By Order)

Order read for resuming adjourned debate on Question [8 February], That the Bill be now read a Second time.

Debate to be resumed on Thursday 25 February.

BRITISH WATERWAYS BILL [LORDS] (BY ORDER)

CROSSRAIL BILL (By Order)

EAST COAST MAIN LINE (SAFETY) BILL) (By Order)

GREATER MANCHESTER (LIGHT RAPID TRANSIT SYSTEM) BILL [Lords] (By Order)

WOODGRANGE PARK CEMETARY BILL [Lords] (By Order)

RIVER HUMBER (UPPER BURCOM COOLING WORKS) BILL [Lords] (By Order)

ALLIED IRISH BANKS BILL (By Order)

Orders for Second Reading read.

To be read a second time on Thursday 25 February.

Oral Answers to Questions — NORTHERN IRELAND

United States Government

Mr. Bowis: To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland when he expects to meet representatives of the United States Government to discuss Northern Ireland.

The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Sir Patrick Mayhew): I hope to meet members of the new United States Administration within the next few months.

Mr. Bowis: When my right hon. and learned Friend meets President Clinton's team, will he make it clear that if the President would like to send an envoy to this country as a fact finder and as a supporter of my right hon. and learned Friend's excellent peace work, it will be most welcome? However, if President Clinton sends somebody to this country to meddle, that would be as offensive as if this country sent a peace envoy to the Mexican border to look into the problems of the Hispanics.

Sir Patrick Mayhew: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I am certain that the President of the United States would not want to send anybody to Northern Ireland for the latter purpose that my hon. Friend mentioned. It is important that the American Administration continue to give their full support to the talks process to which my hon. Friend kindly referred. I welcome every opportunity to explain our understanding of the true facts of Northern Ireland and the continuing efforts of the two Governments and of the main constitutional parties in Northern Ireland.

Mr. A. Cecil Walker: When the Secretary of State has an opportunity to talk to members of the United States Government, will he restate the investment potential of north Belfast— an area of special needs, and one which has a work force willing and able to adapt to special circumstances?

Sir Patrick Mayhew: The hon. Gentleman takes a close interest in the material welfare of his constituency, and of course I will do as he wishes. I will not limit my endeavours to north Belfast because the truth is that the whole of Northern Ireland presents an admirable investment opportunity—especially to investors seeking a gateway to the single European market. I have found that overseas companies that have established themselves in Northern Ireland turn out to be the best ambassadors for Northern Ireland in that regard.

Sir James Kilfedder: Will the Secretary of State point out to the American Government that the people of Northern Ireland will welcome anyone from America, because we sent many people there in the 18th century to help create the United States of America? Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman also remind the United States Government that Northern Ireland has received visitors ever since St. Patrick arrived there—first under duress, but later glad to return to Northern Ireland? St. Patrick was of course what the IRA term a Brit. We also had visitors from the nordic countries—Vikings—to my constituency 1,300 years ago, when they wiped out the marvellous university


of Bangor. Nevertheless, I hope that the Secretary of State will stress that we are always glad to welcome friendly visitors to our part of the United Kingdom.

Sir Patrick Mayhew: At a recent public meeting in Northern Ireland I was introduced as St. Patrick, and I take much to heart the hon. Gentleman's remarks. When people come to Northern Ireland genuinely seeking to learn the true facts of the situation there, they go away wiser and happier. Anyone from the United States Administration who comes to Northern Ireland for that purpose will be very welcome, and I expect that they, too, will return to America happier and wiser people.

Mr. McNamara: It is interesting to note the change in the Secretary of State's attitude since the election in the United States and the result that emerged from it.
Will the Secretary of State confirm that successive American Administrations of both parties have played a constructive role, and adopted constructive attitudes towards Northern Ireland—not least in placing important orders with Northern Ireland firms and encouraging investment there? They have also been very helpful in regard to the extradition of persons accused of serious crime. They have stopped the illegal export of arms and cut down the activities of Noraid.
In those circumstances, should we not positively encourage continued interest in the affairs of Northern Ireland on the part of any American Administration, especially an Administration involved in the reconiciliation of peoples and the protection of human rights? As the Secretary of State has said, we would all welcome any member of the United States Administration who came here to help to improve the situation in that troubled Province.

Sir Patrick Mayhew: I readily confirm that successive United States Administrations have been of great help. In particular, I acknowledge with gratitude the help in curtailing funds that reach terrorist organisations, notably the IRA, from American sources.
Recently, the Southern Legislative Conference visited Northern Ireland. Its members spent many days there, and I was particularly glad—although not surprised—when, on their return they said publicly that their purpose would be to correct in the American media the wholly false impression of Northern Ireland that is current in the United States.

NHS Treatment

Mr. John Marshall: To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many people were treated by the national health service (a) in 1982 and (b) in 1992.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. Jeremy Hanley): In addition to this year's 1·3 million out-patient attendances and 641,000 accident and emergency attendances, 280,000 in-patients were treated in Northern Ireland in 1992. That is 15 per cent. up on the 240,000 treated in 1982. In the same period, the number of people treated as day cases increased from 10,000 to over 60,000.

Mr. Marshall: Does my hon. Friend agree that an increase of 36 per cent., from 250,000 to 310,000, demonstrates the Government's commitment to the health

service, and to the people of Northern Ireland? Will he now tell us what has happened—within the overall figure —to the level of waiting lists for cardiac surgery?

Mr. Hanley: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his comments, which I shall pass on to my noble Friend Lord Arran, the Minister responsible for health in Northern Ireland.
There is a particular problem with cardiac surgery in Northern Ireland, because of the problem of cardiac disease. I am pleased to say, however, that—owing to the waiting list initiatives in Northern Ireland—in addition to the £1 million-plus a year that has been helping to reduce long-term waiting lists from more than 5,000 people to a third of that number, we now have £2.75 million extra to spend on the cardiac waiting list in the coming year. That should improve matters further: it should entirely wipe out the waiting list, which was reduced from over 400 early last year to its current level of 170.

Mr. Maginnis: When considering the availability of acute hospital services and access to such services, will the Minister also consider—and tell the House—whether they should be rationalised without boards making known to the public the full implications, including financial implications, of the change? Is the Minister aware that, in its document "Making Choices", the Southern board has suggested changes in the delivery of maternity services, which would certainly disadvantage many people in south Tyrone and mid-Ulster? I refer to the proposals for the South Tyrone hospital.
If the Minister does not ensure that the full implications of those proposals are made known to the public, we shall find that, in future, hospitals will be unable to deliver the services that he has outlined today and will encounter extreme difficulty in applying for trust status. Will the Minister encourage health boards not to put the cart before the horse?

Mr. Hanley: The hon. Gentleman refers to the Southern health and social services board's recently-published major reviews, entitled "Making Choices." It is a genuine review; it asks people to state their choices; it asks for their comments. Any interested individuals or organisations can send in their responses by 31 March. It is hoped that the review of services will be completed by 31 May. The hon. Gentleman said that the review does not contain certain information. The review contains six options for the future arrangement of hospital services. However, the board made it clear that it wants other options to be generated and that it wants suggestions from the general public. This is genuine, open consultation. No decisions have been taken.

Rev. William McCrea: Does the Minister not realise that in the Western board area the excellent maternity services provided by the Tyrone county hospital for the mothers and children of that area are being destroyed by a totally undemocratic board which does not represent the will of the people and runs across everything that is included in the patients charter and that affects patients choice? The review is no more than a sham. It will not be accepted by the people of that area; and it never will.

Mr. Hanley: The hon. Gentleman has put his views to Ministers forcefully over the past few months. We are grateful for the interest that he takes in his constituents in that regard. Although "Making Choices" says that there


could be a loss of obstetric, gynaecological, ear, nose and throat and paediatric services at South Tyrone hospital, the report makes clear that no decisions have been or will be made on anything until the whole consultative process is complete. The Southern health and social services board will take full account of the views expressed by the interested parties in framing its views for the future. I believe that the hon. Gentleman has a very important part still to play in that consultation process.

Inward Investment

Mr. Simon Coombs: To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the current level of inward investment in Northern Ireland.

The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (Mr. Robert Atkins): So far this financial year, the Industrial Development Board has secured seven new inward investment projects involving a total investment of just over £105 million and offering 1,299 new jobs. This is a most encouraging achievement.

Mr. Coombs: How many of the firms to which my hon. Friend referred in his answer would have come to Ulster if the clammy hand of the social chapter had been wrapped around the throat of the Province's economy?

Mr. Atkins: My hon. Friend, with his usual perspicacity, has put his finger right on the key to all this. My hon. Friend will recall what the President of the European Commission said recently when he referred to the United Kingdom as being a paradise for investment. Certainly this part of the United Kingdom is doing extremely well and would probably do a jolly sight less well if it had to be part of the social chapter, as my hon. Friend rightly says.

Mr. Beggs: May I, on behalf of my colleagues, congratulate those who have been associated with bringing successful new inward investment to Northern Ireland. However, my constituency has lost ICI, Courtaulds, Carreras, Klingers Yarn, Blue Circle, Circaprint and GEC. When can I expect some investment to be directed towards my constituency to make up for those job losses? Can the Minister assure me that sufficient assistance is available to existing industry in Northern Ireland to secure its jobs and its own manufacturing base?

Mr. Atkins: The hon. Gentleman makes a fair point about his constituency, which I understand. It happened over a number of years. The Industrial Development Board, together with Ministers, has tried very hard to redress that by attracting new investment to Northern Ireland. We have been extremely successful, as the hon. Gentleman recognised in his opening remarks. He will understand, however, that if a company wishes to invest in Northern Ireland, the IDB can only offer a variety of choices to it. It is up to the company, in the final analysis, to make a decision about where to go. Of course we offer the hon. Gentleman's area, just as we offer every other area in the constituencies of Members on both sides of the House. In those circumstances, I do not believe that his premise holds up: that, somehow, we are letting his part of the world down. I shall continue, as he well knows, to fight as hard as I possibly can for new investment, both in his constituency and in every other constituency in the Province.

Mr. Budgen: Does my hon. Friend agree that the undoubted need for inward investment does not justify American interference in the affairs of the Province? If there is such interference, does he agree that it should be on a reciprocal basis and that we should be allowed to talk about the problems of the black areas of New York? Might I suggest that I might be given a small job in that discussion because I am ignorant, prejudiced and extremely keen to offer unasked for and impertinent advice in order that I may appear important to my constituents? It is obvious that I am supremely suited, as the Americans are, to the task.

Mr. Atkins: I shall certainly draw the attention of the Chief Whip to my hon. Friend's interest and hope that perhaps for the next three months he might be able to provide my hon. Friend with the opportunity to leave this country so that he does not have to participate in any votes on the Maastricht treaty.

Mr. McGrady: If I may return to the more serious business of unemployment in Northern Ireland, I congratulate the Minister and agree that any inward investment is most welcome. But surely he must be aware from his own departmental statistics and, indeed, his parliamentary answers, that certain areas of Northern Ireland never have industrial development. They coincide with high endemic unemployment. Does he agree that the matter must be redressed by the zoning of Northern Ireland for preferential treatment for those areas that have been deprived of investment in the past and have a current and endemic higher level of unemployment than many other areas?

Mr. Atkins: The hon. Gentleman fights his corner as hard as anyone I know in trying to attract inward investment. I know of his particular interest in Chicago and other areas of the United States. I reiterate the point that I made to the hon. Member for Antrim, East (Mr. Beggs) that I cannot force a company to invest in a particular area if it chooses not to do so. My job is to persuade them to invest in Northern Ireland. Of course, we try to encourage them in areas where we see that there is a factory, a site or a problem that would suit their operation. Given the concern that he expresses, as he knows, I have undertaken to make inquiries with the IDB about exactly what it is doing in his constituency. If I find that there are weaknesses, I shall seek to redress them.

Mr. Stott: While inward investment in Northern Ireland is to be welcomed, wherever it originates, it is having little effect on the employment prospects of a vast number of people in the Province. The Minister will be aware that the total number of people unemployed in Northern Ireland now stands at a staggering 108,000. Of that total, 29,152 are under the age of 25. Given such a chronic waste of talent and skill, what positive steps does the Minister intend to take to reduce the unacceptable levels of unemployment which are his direct responsibility?

Mr. Atkins: I cannot accept the direct finger of responsibility which the hon. Gentleman points at me. The problem has for many years existed and he is right to say that it is a difficult and intractable problem. Although the headline total of unemployment in Northern Ireland has increased, the adjusted figure is the same as last month's figure. The figures for the past four months are encouraging, while the total is disappointing. But that


makes even more important the task that I and my hon. Friends in the Administration, together with every Member of Parliament, have in encouraging existing companies to expand and provide new jobs and in attracting new companies, such as those that were the subject of the excellent announcements just before and just after Christmas of 1,400 job creation opportunities from inward investment. That provides the future for the young people about whom the hon. Gentleman and I are so concerned.

Security

Mr. Cyril D. Townsend: To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on security in Northern Ireland.

The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (Mr. Michael Mates): Since my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State answered a similar question on 21 January there have been eight deaths as a result of the security situation in Northern Ireland, including five civilians, one member of the Royal Ulster Constabulary and two soldiers.
The Government are determined to secure the defeat of terrorism, from whichever side of the community it comes. The police, supported by the Army, are continuing their efforts to prevent and deter terrorist attacks and to bring those responsible for terrorist crimes before the courts.

Mr. Townsend: My hon. Friend will be aware of the concern in the House about the rising level of violence by those who, while calling themselves loyalists, seem to specialise in killing and maiming Her Majesty's subjects in Northern Ireland. What success are the security forces having in curtailing the activities of such vicious criminals and, more importantly, in successfully bringing them before the courts?

Mr. Mates: My hon. Friend is right. It is a worry that so-called loyalist terrorists are on the increase, that violence is on the increase and, worst of all, that random sectarian killing seems to be a feature of what comes from that side of the community. We are determined to root out the terrorists from whichever side of the divide they come. There is no difference in the determination of the Government and of the RUC to bring terrorists to justice, from whatever side of the community in Northern Ireland they come.

Mr. Molyneaux: Has the Minister seen the report in the Belfast Telegraph about the IRA ordering 40 young men to leave Dundalk or, as the IRA delicately put it, "face the consequences"? That comes on the eve of the Sinn Fein/IRA annual conference in Dundalk—which, of course, is those organisations' forward base. Do the Minister and the Secretary of State expect parties in the House to condemn that exclusion order as fiercely as they oppose the prevention of terrorism Acts?

Mr. Mates: Indeed, we have nothing but contempt for what the IRA stands for, for what it says and for all its works. The way in which it seeks to impose its own law in certain parts of Northern Ireland will he resisted as, I am perfectly certain, the Irish Government will wish to resist any attempt the IRA may make to take the place of the forces of law and order in the Republic of Ireland.

Rev. Ian Paisley: Is the Minister now in a position to make a full statement about the bomb discovered three weeks ago in the canteen of the Crumlin Road prison? Would he care to confirm or deny to the House that just before the bomb was found the canteen had been used by republican prisoners, that the security check had been made and had failed to discover the bomb, and that the bomb was actually discovered by an orderly shifting chairs in the canteen? Can he tell the House whether the security camera placed in the canteen after the previous bombing in 1991, in which a loyalist prisoner was killed, was in operation? Will he tell the House whether anyone has been charged with the planting of this bomb or of the previous bomb, which killed a loyalist prisoner?

Mr. Mates: There is no question that the incident was very serious, in that any amount of explosive, however small, that finds it way into any prison is a serious matter. However, it is important to point out to the hon. Gentleman that the device was not a bomb and was not capable of explosion. It was a very small piece of explosive with some form of electrical contact. To say that is not to undermine the seriousness of the situation, but the device was not a bomb.

Mr. McNamara: The Minister will be aware that the people of Northern Ireland must have confidence not only in the role of the security forces but in the Ministers responsible for dealing with them. Bearing that in mind, will he take the opportunity not only to agree with the Prime Minister that all who were killed on bloody Sunday were innocent, but to apologise for and correct the inaccuracies in the statement that he made on Radio Telefis Eireann? First, rubber batons were used in Derry on the same day, so the Army had methods of protecting themselves other than bullets. Secondly, the Minister said:
There would have been no murder of anyone if it hadn't been for the bloody riot organised by those very
murderers.
In view of the Prime Minister's statement, will the Minister tell us which of the 14 dead had organised the "bloody riot" in Derry, of which there was later no evidence? Will he now give a full apology, not a fudged one, to say sorry for the extreme distress that he has caused—or are we to add this to his other clangers, such as the statements on Father Ryan and Coalisland? Should he not consider his position?

Mr. Mates: First, the extracts from which the hon. Gentleman has read came from an interview that I gave 14 months ago, on a different day and in a different context, when I was Chairman of the Select Committee on Defence and not a Minister. That part of my statement was taken out of context, but I said straight away—the next day—that those remarks were high on the list of things that I wished I had not said. I believe that the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) has also said one or two things in the past that he has had cause to regret. I then made a statement in which I fully supported the letter that the Prime Minister wrote to the hon. Member for Foyle (Mr. Hume), and I stand by what that letter said.

Terrorism

Mr. Gallie: To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many people were convicted of terrorist offences in Northern Ireland in 1992.

Mr. Mates: Last year, 404 people were charged with serious terrorist-related offences, including 34 with murder, and 63 with attempted murder; 354 people were convicted, including seven of murder and seven of attempted murder.

Mr. Gallie: I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. How does the number of charges made compare with the number of incidents reported? Is he satisfied with the level of cross-border co-operation that he receives from the Irish Republic?

Mr. Mates: I am not sure that we have the statistics in the form for which my hon. Friend asks, but I will certainly look into that and, if we do, I shall write to him about them.
Cross-border co-operation is much better and continues to improve. The Anglo-Irish Agreement has been the major instrument in improving that co-operation. We are not satisfied, however, and we shall continue to do what we can to ensure that it gets even better.

Dr. Hendron: With regard to the brutal murders in 1988 of corporals Derek Howe and Derek Wood in Penny lane, Andersonstown, and the gross inconsistencies of the court decisions on those charged in connection with those murders, and bearing in mind that Patrick Kane, Sean Kelly and Michael Timmons were not present in Penny lane when the soldiers were shot, will the Secretary of State refer those cases and other associated ones to the Court of Appeal? The Secretary of State will be aware that relevant medical evidence relating to Patrick Kane was not used at the trial. I am aware that the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) has already raised this matter.

Mr. Mates: As the hon. Gentleman knows, representations have been made to my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State about the cases relating to the murder of those corporals. My right hon. and learned Friend is considering all of them and will then take whatever action he considers appropriate.

Mr. Bill Walker: When my hon. Friend discusses with his colleagues in government the conviction of terrorists, will he bring to their attention how essential the helicopter assets of the Royal Air Force and the Army are in catching the terrorists before they are convicted? We cannot trade off those helicopters for regiments of infantry; we need to have both.

Mr. Mates: My hon. Friend finds ever more ingenious ways of making his point. This is, of course, a matter for my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Defence and not for me. However, the contribution made by Army and RAF helicopters in Northern Ireland is of inestimable value in the fight against terrorism.

Mr. Trimble: Will the Minister also confirm that the helicopters took the film that enabled the courts to identify and convict the persons involved in the murder of the two army corporals, including Messrs. Kane, Kelly and Timmons, are a particularly valuable asset to the security forces? Will the Minister recommend to the Secretary of State that when he replies to the erroneous and misleading letter that he received from the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara), he should explain carefully the distinctions, in law and in fact, which the courts drew carefully and accurately in that case?

Mr. Mates: I confirm that all the helicopter assets are of value; the way in which one can observe and take pictures of incidents is also particularly valuable in bringing convictions. The answer to the hon. Gentleman's final point is that my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State will have heard what he said and will no doubt take it into account.

NHS Trusts

Mr. Fabricant: To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many expressions of interest in trust status have been received from hospitals in the Belfast area.

Mr. Hanley: Belfast is part of the Eastern health and social services board area, in which all the units of management have expressed interest in attaining trust status.

Mr. Fabricant: That is good news for the people of Northern Ireland, but can my hon. Friend do anything to encourage hospitals and health management units in the north-west to apply for trust status? In encouraging them to do so, he might well point out the example of a trust in my own constituency of Mid-Staffordshire. The Mental Health Foundation has increased the number of psychiatric consultants fourfold and the number of community psychiatric nurses from 12 to 58 since becoming a trust.

Mr. Hanley: My hon. Friend is absolutely right; the benefits of trust status are becoming more evident to all. In Northern Ireland, in the first wave there were three applications, of which one is now a trust; in the second wave there were 11 applications, nine of which are now proceeding; and in the third wave, which my noble Friend Lord Arran introduced recently, four applied and four have been granted. I do not believe that it is the Government's role to try to encourage trust status as such —[Interruption.]—because the advantages are apparent to all.

Rev. Martin Smyth: Does the Minister accept that four trusts were not able to be appointed because the necessary legislation was not in place? Does he appreciate that those seeking to implement trust status have difficulty doing so when the health and social services board interferes in the arrangements? I am thinking particularly of the City hospital in my constituency, where for several years a senior board official has been seeking to rubbish the Jubilee maternity hospital, which has been giving excellent service and to which GP fund holders are glad to refer people, rather than take the advice of the Eastern health and social services board, which has said, in effect, "We shall not purchase, although your quality and price are right."

Mr. Hanley: The hon. Gentleman's support for the Jubilee hospital is well known. Matters are still progressing on that front and the issue is still open for consultation. The hon. Gentleman is right to say that the four community units of management to which he referred have been accepted in theory as trust while waiting for the legislation to be passed; I have every confidence that it will be passed and that those units of management will become trusts before the end of this year.

Mr. William O'Brien: How many representations has the Minister received expressing concern and fear about trust status applying to social services and hospitals in Belfast? Why is the Department afraid of obtaining views on the concept of trusts from people in Northern Ireland who work for and serve in the health and social services sector? Why is the Minister afraid of addressing the fundamental issues of trusts in Belfast in particular and in Northern Ireland in general, particularly as they apply to the social services?

Mr. Hanley: My noble Friend Lord Arran is certainly addressing the issue of trusts. Indeed, had the hon. Gentleman been listening more carefully earlier he would have heard that the record on the establishment on trust status in Northern Ireland is ever increasing; they are becoming more and more popular and not one trust that has been applied for has expressed any regrets. More than that, the level of complaints after a trust has been established has dwindled to almost nothing. In other words, fears are being exploited by Opposition Members, whereas the reality is benefits to patients, which is exactly what trust status is designed to achieved.

Industrial Productivity

Mr. William Ross: To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on Northern Ireland industrial productivity levels.

Mr. Atkins: Gross domestic product per employee in manufacturing industries in Northern Ireland in 1991 was £17,900. Over the five-year period, 1986 to 1991, manufacturing productivity in Northern Ireland increased by 18 per cent., which compares very well with the growth in manufacturing productivity of 19 per cent. for the United Kingdom as a whole over the same period.

Mr. Ross: Do not those very welcome figures indicate that, as manufacturing productivity improves in Northern Ireland, so Northern Ireland becomes a much better place for inward investment? Will the Minister do all that he possibly can to increase the productivity of the work force in Northern Ireland so as to attract more inward investment?

Mr. Atkins: The hon. Gentleman is entirely right. If we are to continue to seek foreign investors investing in Northern Ireland, as well as from other parts of Europe and the United Kingdom as a whole, we need to increase productivity to the sort of level that demonstrates that the work force is first rate, that the products made are first rate and that, all in all, Northern Ireland is the best place to invest in, for all the reasons that the hon. Gentleman mentions.

Mr. Bellingham: Does the Minister agree that good labour relations and inward investment play a key role in Northern Ireland's recovery? What representations has he received from business men in Northern Ireland about the effects of the social chapter on their businesses?

Mr. Atkins: I think it fair to say that the general consensus among business men involved in Northern Ireland activities will be that the social chapter is the disaster that we know it to be, and they recognise only too readily the contribution of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister in ensuring that there was an opt-out from that

disastrous policy, which, as the President of the European Commission has said time and again, has ensured that Great Britain and Northern Ireland is a paradise for foreign investment.

Irish Constitution

Mr. Barnes: To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland when he plans to raise the issue of articles 2 and 3 of the Irish constitution with Irish Ministers; and if he will make a statement.

Sir Patrick Mayhew: I met the new Irish Foreign Minister, Mr. Spring, on 22 January and also on 3 February. On both occasions, constitutional issues, including that issue, were among the subjects discussed.
I am glad that the Irish Government have said that they are willing to initiate and incorporate constitutional change in the context of an overall political settlement.

Mr. Barnes: Dick Spring has said that it would be easier to define a nation if it were one community on two islands, rather than two communities on one island. Would not the removal of articles 2 and 3 from the Irish constitution assist greatly in discussions between the two communities and therefore assist further that possible definition?

Sir Patrick Mayhew: The hon. Gentleman well knows the areas in which articles 2 and 3 present real difficulty to the constitutional parties and the Governments in reaching the objectives set out by my predecessor in March 1991. The talks, which continued during last year, achieved considerable success, but there is a long way to go. I believe that articles 2 and 3, among many other matters, call for very careful consideration in the future.

Mr. Peter Robinson: Will the Secretary of State tell the House in clear and simple terms: do he and the Government want Northern Ireland to remain an integral part of the United Kingdom?

Sir Patrick Mayhew: I have made it clear, as have predecessor Administrations, that so long as the democratic will of the people living in Northern Ireland, clearly expressed, leads to their wishing to remain part of the United Kingdom, the Government wish them to remain part of the United Kingdom and, what is more, we shall honour the constitutional guarantee that has been given to them in that regard.

Mr. Hume: Does the Secretary of State agree that this is largely a propagandist issue and that the problem of Northern Ireland existed long before that constitution was introduced? Does he agree that it is normal that fundamental aspirations are included in the constitutions of most countries, but that there is no evidence of any description that articles 2 and 3 would be implemented by any form of coercion by any party in the south of Ireland? In your own constitution, the head of this state must be the head of a particular church, and bishops of that church have seats as of right in the House of Lords, but no one would argue, I think, in propaganda terms, that Britain is a sectarian society.

Sir Patrick Mayhew: I shall not take up every facet of the hon. Gentleman's question. I agree with him that articles 2 and 3 in the Irish constitution have formed part of that constitution.only in relatively modern times—since 1937. I agree with him also that the problems of Northern


Ireland have roots which go back a long way before that. That does not, however, deprive articles 2 and 3 of any substance or of any significance to the matters that all the main constitutional parties and the two Governments were addressing last year in the talks, which 1 hope will resume.

Oral Answers to Questions — PRIME MINISTER

Havercroft

Mr. Enright: To ask the Prime Minister when he will pay an official visit to Havercroft.

The Prime Minister (Mr. John Major): I am making plans for a series of visits to all parts of the country and hope to include Yorkshire among them.

Mr. Enright: Is the Prime Minister aware that miners from Havercroft, who have been blackmailed into taking redundancy payments, do not count among the 3 million unemployed? Is he further aware that if the pit at Grimesthorpe were to be closed, male unemployment in the area would be one in three? Will he today, therefore, guarantee the future of Grimesthorpe, not least because it is commercially profitable?

The Prime Minister: No one is blackmailed in the way the hon. Gentleman says. The position of Grimesthorpe, as with the other pits, will he covered in the review being undertaken by my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade.

Engagements

Mr. Barry Jones: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for 18 February.

The Prime Minister: This morning I presided at a meeting of the Cabinet and had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I shall be having further meetings later today.

Mr. Jones: Does not Britain need a national strategy to combat the evil of mass unemployment? When will the indecision, drift and the weakness come to an end? Has not the right hon. Gentleman's conduct of Her Majesty's Government in recent times been a disgrace? If he cannot give a lead to our nation, should he not go?

The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman is well rehearsed, but not well informed. If he had been well informed, he would have known, for example, that in a recent speech in Athens the Leader of the Opposition admitted that unemployment was a problem not only in this country but right across Europe. If the right hon. and learned Gentleman recognises that, why cannot the hon. Gentleman?

Mr. Oppenheim: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 18 February.

The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the answer that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Oppenheim: Does my right hon. Friend agree that when it comes to the social chapter there can be no free ride, that such benefits have to be matched by increased productivity or they will add only to unemployment and that the best way to get sustainable long-term jobs is to continue with structural reforms, particularly improving

education, rather than engaging in short-term bail-outs and subsidies for unsustainable industries? Would not policies like the social chapter, increased payroll tax, a statutory minimum wage and the repeal of trade union laws—all Labour policies—add to unemployment rather than improving the situation?

The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend is entirely right about that. There is no purpose in the Opposition saying that they care about unemployment when they are committed to policies that will put up unemployment arid keep it up. Until they drop their support for the social chapter, the minimum wage and windfall tax, they are in no position to lecture anyone about job losses.

Mr. John Smith: Does the Prime Minister appreciate that the country will never forget that it was his Government and his Chancellor of the Exchequer who told us that unemployment was a "price well worth paying"? On the day when unemployment has reached the tragic total of 3 million, will he now publicly repudiate that heartless approach?

The Prime Minister: The right hon. and learned Gentleman knows very well that we have set in place—[Hon. Members: "Answer!"] We have set in place to assist people who are unemployed a comprehensive system of schemes unmatched in the history of this country and unmatched elsewhere in Europe—[Hon. Members: "Answer the question."]—the training for work programme, the job clubs, the job—[Interruption.]

Madam Speaker: Order. I will not have hon. Members shouting down any other right hon. or hon. Member. I warn Members that I shall use the authority that this House has given if this continues.

The Prime Minister: I was trying to inform hon. Gentlemen, who were shouting out, of the assistance that has been put in place to help people who are currently without work to be trained and to get back in work, which I should have thought was what the right hon. and learned Gentleman and I would wish to see done. I repeat for his benefit: the training for work schemes, the job clubs, the job interview guarantees, the business start-up schemes, the job plan workshops, the restart courses—constitute an unprecedented amount of help to deal with a problem which exists in this country and in every country in Europe.

Mr. John Smith: Does the Prime Minister not appreciate that unemployment at this menacing level is not just a personal disaster for millions of honest and decent people who want to have the independence and dignity that employment can give them, but also an economic millstone around this country's neck? Does he not understand that uenmplopyment at this tragic level costs Britain £27,000 million per year and that we lose 780 million working days? Is that not economic madness as well as social tragedy?

The Prime Minister: Of course we appreciate that fact. That is why we are seeking, first, to help those who are unemployed, and also to create the circumstances to make sure that they have permanent, long-term, sustainable jobs in the future. We are determined to bring unemployment down, and we will—but with-our policies, not with the lack of policies of Opposition Members. I repeat that we have put in place the most comprehensive training programmes


ever to help unemployed people. We shall be introducing new training schemes with almost half a million new training and employment places in April. In terms of getting permanent, sustainable jobs, we have brought inflation down to its lowest level for 25 years, my right hon. Friend's autumn statement put in place further policies for growth, interest rates are at their lowest level for 15 years and retail sales are rising. Those are the facts which bring positive hope for the unemployed, not the empty rhetoric of the right hon. and learned Gentleman.

Mr. John Smith: If those schemes were of any value, if they were successful, and if the Prime Minister really cares about bringing down unemployment, why has he stood idly by and allowed it to rise in every month of his period of office? Is it not rather contemptible, on this tragic day, to be seeking to blame others and to abuse his opponents? Is it not time that he accepted the responsibilities of his office and did what the country desperately wants him to do—put bringing down unemployment at the top of our national agenda?

The Prime Minister: What the right hon. and learned Gentleman had to say at the outset of his remarks was very revealing: if, he said, these schemes are of value. Does that explain why the right hon. and learned Gentleman and his party have opposed every training measure that we have put in place for unemployed people? The facts are that the Government have put in place nearly 1 million training and employment opportunities this year, and we plan to increase them by half a million in April. I would find the right hon. and learned Gentleman's concern more convincing if he had just one decent economic policy to tackle unemployment. Instead, he has two bad policies. The first is the tax on excess profits: the old Labour party speaking again—they do not like profits, they want to penalise success, and they will never understand that profits fund investment and finance jobs. And now they want a training tax as well to put more people out of work. Perhaps the right hon. and learned Gentleman should have a word with his transport spokesman, who said of the minimum wage—[Interruption.] I know Opposition Members do not like it, but they had better listen. His transport spokesman said:
I knew the consequences were that there would be some shakeout, any silly fool knew that.

Madam Speaker: Has the Prime Minister completed his answer?

The Prime Minister: I sat down, Madam Speaker, because you were getting up. I will repeat the quote from the Opposition transport spokesman. [Interruption.] They do not like it, but they are going to get it. I repeat the quote from the shadow transport spokesman, who said of a national minimum wage:
I knew the consequences were that there would be some shakeout, any silly fool knew that.
It is a pity that the right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East (Mr. Smith) did not know that and did not oppose a policy which would lose jobs.

Mr. Robert Banks: Has my right hon. Friend seen reports showing that not only is Nissan in Sunderland exporting cars to Japan, but Vauxhall is now exporting Astra cars to Japan? Is that not a remarkable turnround in the fortunes of British car manufacturers, good for jobs and good for exports?

The Prime Minister: It most certainly is. We all recall the state of the car industry in the 1970s. I wholeheartedly agree with my hon. Friend that this is welcome news for British car manufacturers, proving that they can compete with the world's best on quality, price and productivity both in this country and in exporting.

Mr. Ashdown: rose—

Mr. Skinner: You bailed him out.

Madam Speaker: Order. The hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) must resume his seat. Time is passing.

Mr. Ashdown: Why does the Prime Minister always use his time to tell us what the Opposition said instead of telling us what he will do? Last night President Clinton gave his country hope through strong leadership and a clear programme for renewal. Is it not fortunate that the Prime Minister does not have to make a state of the nation address because it is clear that if he did he would have noting to say, not even, it appears, "Sorry"?

The Prime Minister: If the right hon. Gentleman had listened, he would have heard a long list of action that the Government have taken. Since he did not listen, let me give him more information. The £2.5 billion spent on training measures is two and a half times as much as any previous Government spent. We had the package of measures in the autumn statement to boost the construction industry by releasing capital receipts, the assistance for manufacturing industry by introducing new capital allowances, and the extra help for exporters. The right hon. Gentleman is leader of his party. Where has he been that he knows none of this?

Mr. Lidington: Is my right hon. Friend aware that businesses in the Thames-Chiltern area are reporting increased exports to the middle east, the far east and north America? Does he agree that in a world economy which is becoming more and not less competitive, permanent jobs and prosperity will depend on the enterprise and hard work of businesses like those and not on the meddlesome bureaucracy and cheap answers proposed by Opposition parties?

The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend is quite right. In a fiercely competitive world, it is only if we have the most competitive industries that we can look forward to job creation or to increasing prosperity. That is why it is necessary to get inflation down. That is why it has been necessary to get interest rates down and why the improvements in productivity which are becoming so remarkable are one of the best indications of our future prospects. They are good prospects as a result of the measures that we have taken and will continue to sustain.

Mr. Trimble: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 18 February.

The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the answer I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Trimble: I have here a letter from the Fair Employment Commission refusing assistance to one of my constituents with regard to his complaint that he had been discriminated against by the civil service. Incidentally, the letter is signed by the public servant who suggested recently that photographs of Her Majesty should not be


displayed in a public building. The clear implication of this letter is that criteria, instead of being set objectively by reference to the nature of the job, should be manipulated in order to achieve the quota—

Madam Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman must ask a question. We now have the background.

Mr. Trimble: The Fair Employment Commission described this manipulation as affording equality of opportunity. Does the Prime Minister agree that such criteria should be manipulated for the purpose of achieving the commission's job quota in every place of work?

The Prime Minister: If the hon. Gentleman had let me see the letter, I should have been able to give him a detailed reply. If he does so, I will examine the letter and respond to him in detail. As I have not seen it, the hon. Gentleman cannot have expected a reply of any sort.

Mr. Simon Hughes: On a point of order, Madam Speaker.

Madam Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman knows that I take points of order after questions. This is a continuation of questions. Throughout most of the 20 years I have been here, this is the way it has been done, and I shall not change it now.

Business of the House

Mrs. Margaret Beckett: Will the Leader of the House state the business for next week?

The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Tony Newton): Yes, Madam. The business for next week will be as follows:
MONDAY 22 FEBRUARY—European Communities (Amendment) Bill: progress in Committee, 12th day.
TUESDAY 23 FEBRUARY—Debate on international peacekeeping, on a motion for the Adjournment of the House.
WEDNESDAY 24 FEBRUARY—Debate on the Army, on a motion for the Adjournment of the House.
THURSDAY 25 FEBRUARY—European Communities (Amendment) Bill: progress in Committee, 13th day.
FRIDAY 26 FEBRUARY—Private Members' motions.
MONDAY 29 FEBRUARY—Debate On Welsh affairs, on a motion for the Adjournment of the House.
The House will also wish to know that European Standing Committee A will meet on Wednesday 24 February at 10.30 am to consider European Community Documents No. 9482/91 and 9284/92 relating to minimum health and safety requirements for work on board fishing vessels.

[Wednesday 24 February:
European Standing Committee A: Relevant European Community documents–9482/91 and 9284/92, health and safety on board fishing vessels; relevant report of the European Legislation Committee—HC 24-ix (1991–92), Hc 79-i (1992–93), HC 79-xi (1992–93).]

Mrs. Beckett: I thank the Lord President for his statement. Does he realise that two aspects of it will arouse considerable resentment in all parts of the House?
First, arranging debates on the Maastricht Bill for Monday and Thursday is a device transparently designed not to facilitate scrutiny but to evade it, as it may well mean that key debates, and possibly key votes, will take place in the early hours of Friday morning, which is not for the convenience of anyone in the House.
Secondly, where is the Education Bill? [Interruption.] As the right hon. Gentleman may not have heard that question, I shall repeat it: where is the Education Bill? The right hon. Gentleman will vividly recall that the Government gave the excuse that they had to guillotine that Bill out of Committee so that it could be back in the House no later than next week. It could have had an extra week in Committee, affording many additional hours of scrutiny—which, heaven knows, it needs. Why will it not be before us next week? Is it to enable us to have one-line business between the two Maastricht days?
In view of the increasing volume of press reporting about the coal industry, can the Lord President give us any indication of when we may expect a White Paper and a debate on that issue?
I want now to put to the Leader of the House a question that I have put in previous weeks and will continue to put until he grants us the necessary debate: when may we have a statement from the Home Secretary about the crime wave in this country? There is increasing concern about this matter. The Home Secretary is widely rumoured to have dramatic and far-reaching plans for reorganisation of the police, to take control into the hands of the

Government. That will inspire no one with greater confidence. It is important that we have a statement on this matter and on public expenditure as soon as possible.

Mr. Newton: First, despite the rather abrasive tone of some of the right hon. Lady's questions, I congratulate her on her first appearance with that appellation at the Dispatch Box.
Secondly, in a slightly more abrasive mode myself, I should say that the notion that there should be resentment at a perfectly normal use of parliamentary time to discuss an important Bill is absurd. The Education Bill was allowed a considerable length of time in Committee, no understanding was entered into that it would be debated immediately on Report, and the two debates that are scheduled for the middle of next week are debates that the right hon. Lady has been demanding for weeks.
As for debates on coal, the police and the Home Office, I am afraid that I have nothing to add to what I have said to the right hon. Lady in previous weeks.

Mr. John Biffen: The next time that the right hon. Member for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett), the deputy Leader of the Opposition, shows some signs of wilting before the requirements of proper scrutiny of the European Communities (Amendment) Bill, will my right hon. Friend remind her that the Committee and Report stages of Gladstone's Home Rule Bill took 82 days, which gives us some idea of the parliamentary requirements of scrutiny of these affairs?
In that context, the remarks of my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary on Monday about amendment No. 27 to the European Communities (Amendmemnt) Bill have excited considerable interest in the House and outside, and raise matters of proper parliamentary concern that go far wider than Maastricht. It would be unsatisfactory if the House proceeded, technically and formally, to vote upon amendment No. 27 without having a further chance to consider and debate it in the light of my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary's remarks.

Mr. Newton: I thank my right hon. Friend for the first part of his observations, which, without exciting expectations of 82 days on the Bill, I regard as a perfectly proper recognition of the importance of proper scrutiny by the House, whether on Mondays, Thursdays or other days, of the European Communities (Amendment) Bill. My right hon. Friend will understand that the latter point he raised is properly one for the Chairman of Ways and Means and not for me.

Mr. Archy Kirkwood: Having regard to the widespread concern north and south of the border at the proposed cuts in public expenditure on civil legal aid, and also to the news that the appropriate Select Committee is now undertaking a quick report in order to investigate the matter, will the Leader of the House use his good offices to bring the appropriate Home Office Minister to the House to make a statement delaying the introduction of the proposed changes until the Select Committee has had a chance to report?

Mr. Newton: I cannot give the hon. Gentleman the specific undertaking he seeks, but he will know that a Scottish Office Minister has commented on legal aid in Scotland, a matter which I would expect to be debated in the appropriate way in due course, as I told the hon. Member for Moray (Mrs. Ewing).

Sir Teddy Taylor: As senior Ministers inadvertently but consistently misled the public on the impact of amendment No. 27 on the imposition of the social chapter on the United Kingdom, will the Leader of the House assure us that, before the debates on Monday and Thursday, all Ministers will be circulated with a brief paper by the Foreign Secretary describing the exact impact of the amendments that we are debating?

Mr. Newton: My right hon. Friend, the Foreign Secretary made it clear in his statement on Monday that my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General or another legal officer would be here on appropriate occasions to advise the House if need be.

Ms. Glenda Jackson: Is the Lord President aware of early-day motion No. 1412 in my name?
[That this House is appalled to discover that the health needs of Londoners are being decided by a Secretary of State who is unaware that the Royal Free Medical School and the Royal Free Hospital, albeit mutually supportive and inter-dependent, are separate establishments, each with its own unique and proud history of service to their community: and demands both an apology by the Right honourable Lady and a moratorium on any further changes in London's health provision and training until she has fully informed herself of what those needs and provisions really are and who provides them.]
In order to facilitate those London Members who would be only too happy to furnish the right hon. Lady with the relevant information, would he be good enough to find time for a full debate on the subject at the earliest possible opportunity?

Mr. Newton: I note the hon. Lady's specific request. On the first part of her observations, she will know that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health and my hon. Friend the Minister for Health conducted a wide range of consultations between the publication of the Tomlinson report and the statement that was made on Tuesday. Of course, decisions on many of the matters arising from that report can only follow extensive consultation under statutory procedures, which give everyone the opportunity to have their say.

Mr. Richard Tracey: When will the House have an opportunity to debate local government corruption? We constantly hear reports from Lambeth, Hackney, and indeed from Monklands, and from Waltham Forest, and so on. Those matters touch members of the public more than many other matters we discuss here. As councils are about to set their council tax bills, surely it is about time that this matter got the widest possible airing.

Hon. Members: Hear, hear.

Mr. Newton: I note my hon. Friend's request, and the substantial support for it, at least on this side of the House. However, I do not think that I can promise in future a further extension of the fairly large opportunities for debating local government matters that have occurred in recent weeks.

Mr. Ernie Ross: When are we likely to have a debate on the effect of the Government's employment legislation, particularly on the manufacturing sector? Is he aware that, yesterday, Timex in Dundee paid

off 300 skilled and semi-skilled workers, despite the fact that they went through the proper ballot procedures laid down by the Government? Workers have anxiously been trying to get back into work, but the management have arbitrarily decided to pay them off. Can the Leader of the House arrange time for us to discuss the impact of changes in employment legislation on the manufacturing industry?

Mr. Newton: I can only sensibly say to the hon. Gentleman that employment legislation has of course been under debate in the past two days.

Mr. Bob Dunne: Will the Leader of the House find time in the very near future for a debate on education? Such an opportunity would provide us with the chance to point out to people in this country that we enjoy grammar schools, city technology colleges, independent schools, Church schools, grant-maintained schools and a whole range of other choices for parents and pupils because of the policies of the Government and despite the wishes of the Opposition?

Mr. Newton: 1 advert to the request of the right hon. Member for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett), who is clearly keen to debate the remaining stages of the Education Bill. I certainly envisage that that will not be long delayed, and it will give my hon. Friend the perfect opportunity to make the important point that he has just raised.

Mr. Michael Connarty: Will the Leader of the House ask the Home Secretary to give the House a statement on what he is trying to do about the problem of missing persons in the United Kingdom? Is he aware that there are 43,000 runaways each year? Happily, most return home without having been missing for a long time?
Is he aware that it is the second anniversary of the disappearance of my constituent Vicky Hamilton, who is still untraced? Tragically, her mother died in January without knowing what had happened to her daughter. Is he aware of the concern expressed by the police in Lothian because there is no national bureau or database for missing persons? That is a major problem. Will he ask the Home Secretary to explain when he will do something to set up such a database?

Mr. Newton: I will certainly communicate that request to my right hon. and learned Friend.

Mr. Anthony Coombs: In the light of the recent announcement that Jaguar is to spend no less than £500 million on car making in Coventry, and that Lemmerz, the German wheel-making company, is to transfer its entire heavy wheel-making facilities to my constituency, can we have a debate on engineering, which would give us the opportunity not only to describe how far the investing community throughout the world has confidence in British engineering, but also to discuss the disastrous effects that the social chapter would have on competitiveness in engineering and other industries?

Mr. Newton: Somewhat to my regret, I cannot promise my hon. Friend precisely the debate that he wants. However, we are close to extensive debates on the economy and related matters following the Budget, and it may be that they will provide my hon. Friend with the opportunity he seeks.

Mr. David Winnick: I press upon the Leader of the House the need for the Attorney-General to


make a statement on the Maastricht Bill not at some vague future time, but as soon as the Committee sits again next Monday. Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there is bound to be concern about conflicting advice? As the House and the Committee have already been misled once, what confidence can right hon. and hon. Members have in any legal opinion given by Ministers on future occasions, when it is quite likely that we will be told in a week or a fortnight that it was all a mistake? The Attorney-General should come to the Committee early on Monday and make a statement—that should be the first item of business.

Mr. Newton: I am not in a position, and nor would I wish, to add to my earlier remarks and those of my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary on Monday. I have no doubt that the hon. Gentleman will find ways of raising those matters when the Committee resumes on Monday.

Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on his successful timetabling of major recent Bills in Committee. Will he find time for a debate on the Jopling proposals on sittings of the House?

Mr. Newton: I have told the House once or twice recently that the prospect of progress with the Jopling proposals depends on our discussions through the usual channels. Those are complex matters, but I hope that we shall make progress—and I know that the right hon. Member for Derby, South does, too.

Mr. Terry Davis: Will the Leader of the House find time next week to debate the serious implications of a report in today's Birmingham Post to the effect that the British receivers of Leyland-DAF told 200 people working at the Birmingham van factory that Renault will take them over and employ them for five months, on condition that they sign away all their rights under employment protection legislation enacted by the House? Is that not especially important, given that the President of the Board of Trade told the House that he keeps in close touch with the receiver? It seems Government policy not only to deny the benefits of the social chapter to this country's working people but to connive at an attempt by foreign companies to tear up existing Acts of Parliament.

Mr. Newton: Not having had the advantage of reading that report in the important regional newspaper to which the hon. Gentleman referred, it would be wrong for me to comment—but I will bring his remarks to the attention of my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade.

Mr. Matthew Carrington: Will my right hon. Friend urgently arrange a debate on the Government's response to Professor Tomlinson's report on health care in London? The House needs an opportunity to debate the methodological errors that Professor Tomlinson made, which led him to conclude that London—which has some of the longest hospital waiting lists in the country—still has too many acute hospital beds. That led to significant errors in the Government's response.

Mr. Newton: I cannot give my hon. Friend that undertaking, but I note his request and that made earlier by the hon. Member for Hampstead and Highgate (Ms.

Jackson). I draw my hon. Friend's attention to the fact that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health will be in the House to answer oral questions on Tuesday.

Mr. Bob Cryer: May we have a debate at long last on the two outstanding reports from the Select Committee on Members' Interests? I refer to those on the register of commercial lobbying organisations and on clarifying the registering of Members' interests. As the Leader of the House knows, there has been confusion in the minds of the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Minister of Agriculture about what should or should not be registered. I hope that the Leader of the House and the Government are not postponing a debate simply because they endorse the view that Conservative Members should be put out to hire.

Mr. Newton: I assure the hon. Gentleman that there is no foundation for his concluding remarks. As to his request for a debate, and as I have told the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) several times in recent weeks, I have discussed with the Chairman of the Select Committee how we might proceed, but I cannot say this afternoon precisely when a debate will be held.

Mr. David Tredinnick: My right hon. Friend may recall an horrific case in my constituency in 1987, when Olympic marksman Alan Bray was robbed in his shop, tied up, doused in petrol and set on fire. Is my right hon. Friend aware that Michael Patrick, the criminal responsible for that, has been released after—

Madam Speaker: Order. I would be obliged if the hon. Gentleman would tell me how his question relates to next week's business. That is what I am interested in.

Mr. Tredinnick: It relates to next week's business in that I request my right hon. Friend to arrange a debate on the activities of the Parole Board. The investigating officer in the case at the time has written to me to say that Michael Patrick's release after five years is not in the public interest. It goes against the advice given to the Parole Board. Is my right hon. Friend aware that a large proportion of my constituents are up in arms about this man's release? With respect, I want to know what my right hon. Friend proposes to do about it.

Mr. Newton: I think that my hon. Friend will understand that it would be inappropriate for me to make any comment on the case without notice. Clearly, however, he would like me to bring his remarks to the attention of my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary—including his request for a debate—and I undertake to do so.

Mr. John McAllion: When may we have a debate on the connection between mass unemployment and the industrial relations climate? As the Leader of the House has heard, the management of Timex in Dundee yesterday sacked more than 300 of its workers for committing the crime of standing by negotiated agreements and exercising their rights under the present Government's trade union legislation.
May we have an early debate about that? If the Government do nothing about such management tactics —if they simply sit back while that management recruits replacements for its workers from the ranks of the three million unemployed—no one will ever believe them again when they say that they care about the unemployed.
Everyone will understand that mass unemployment lies at the heart of the Government's strategy for driving down workers' wages and conditions.

Mr. Newton: I do not for a moment accept the thrust of the last part of the hon. Gentleman's question. As for the first part, as I said a few moments ago to the hon. Member for Dundee, West (Mr. Ross), we have been debating such matters for the past two days.

Mr. Harry Greenway: May I support the call by my hon. Friend the Member for Dartford (Mr. Dunn) for a debate on education next week, for the additional purpose of finding out what contribution schools and teachers can make to help children avoid becoming sucked into juvenile crime? That is of great concern to the House. In such a debate, should we not consider whether teachers have enough sanctions against indisciplined children, and perhaps consider the reintroduction of moderate and reasonable corporal punishment for the most serious offences—including the occasional six of the best?

Mr. Newton: My hon. Friend will know that my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary is considering matters relating to juvenile offenders, but they are slightly wide of my hon. Friend's points about education and discipline in schools. Let me point him in the direction of the remaining stages of the Education Bill, which—as I have said twice—I do not expect to be long delayed.

Mrs. Margaret Ewing: I thank the Lord President for confirming that the regulations pertaining to civil legal aid in Scotland will require the affirmative procedure in the House of Commons. May I also ask him to consider the matter critical, in the light of parliamentary replies given yesterday which suggested that advice and assistance would be given some concessions but that eligibility for legal aid would not?
In deciding when to table the motions, will the right hon. Gentleman ensure that the regulations are not debated at the tail end of a busy day, and that the debate is not restricted to an hour and a half? May we have a minimum of half a day's debate, and preferably a full day's debate? The regulations are critical to many people in our society.

Mr. Newton: I take note of the hon. Lady's request. As she knows, the arrangements for business of that kind are normally subject to discussion through the usual channels.
To avoid any possible misunderstanding, let me clarify what I said in my letter to the hon. Lady yesterday. I said that "a number" of the sets of regulations were subject to the affirmative resolution procedure. That, however, is merely a small point of clarification.

Mr. Ian Bruce: I would not wish to set a precedent by asking a question about next week's business, but I intend to do so. Can my right hon. Friend tell me what exactly the international peacekeeping debate will involve? Shall we be able to talk about naval matters? We consistently have single-service debates—I am very grateful for the one on the Army which is to take place the following day—but we cannot often talk about the full strategic defence issues, because the rules of order prevent us from crossing the boundary, so to speak, into multi-force issues. I should be grateful for guidance from the Leader of the House.

Mr. Newton: I am genuinely grateful to my hon. Friend, in a way that is not always the case when one says that, for making quite an important point, in my view, about the way in which we sometimes discuss matters in the House. It has not proved possible, for various reasons which perhaps I had better not go into, to achieve precisely what I wanted on that occasion, but it is certainly my understanding—subject to your guidance, Madam Speaker—that a debate on international peacekeeping would make possible a range of very wide observations, and certainly could embrace any operations in which any of our armed forces are involved. I should also point out that the debate will be opened by my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: Will the Leader of the House reverse his opinion about the need for a debate on mass unemployment next week, bearing in mind the fact that the Government could save 300,000 jobs at a stroke by ensuring that the 100,000 local government job cuts are not carried out, that the 100,000 job cuts associated with the pit closures are not carried out and that the 100,000 job cuts associated with the hospitals are not carried out?
If the right hon. Gentleman says that there is no time for such a debate, he should get rid of those tinpot Maastricht debates that are due to take place next week. The British people wonder why this palace of varieties is debating this tinpot Common Market rubbish when it should be debating mass unemployment and that pile of human misery, of people without work.

Mr. Newton: Three points, I think. First, given the extent to which jobs in this country depend upon our trade with Europe, the hon. Gentleman's last point is a long way from reality. Secondly, to answer the first part of his question, if we went down the path that he implicitly advocates, the burdens on British industry through extra taxes would certainly cost more jobs than any that would be created. Thirdly, on his question about a debate, I have already adverted to the fact that we shall be having an extensive economic debate within a matter of weeks.

Mr. Bill Walker: Is my right hon. Friend aware that I at least am delighted with the first four days of next week? The topics listed for debate are all ones in which I have an interest. I hope that I shall have an opportunity to contribute. Can my right hon. Friend confirm that on Tuesday, when we debate peacekeeping, and on Wednesday, when we debate the Army, it will be in order to raise matters concerning the Royal Air Force where it is directly involved in peacekeeping and support for the Army?

Mr. Newton: Again I am in danger, Madam Speaker, of treading on your toes, but I should have thought that that is highly likely, although it might be a bit more difficult on Wednesday. As to the general flavour of my hon. Friend's remarks, I can only say that I look forward to his contributions on Tuesday and Wednesday.

Mr. Jeff Rooker: In order to show that this House is in tune with the real concerns of the nation, can I make a suggestion about next week's business: have the two days on Maastricht but make them Saturday and Sunday, and use the two spare days to debate the proposition that work is the foundation of human endeavour and well-being, and that people's capacity and willingness to work is a nation's greatest


asset? We should then be able to discuss the immorality of this Government in dismissing that proposition out of hand.

Mr. Newton: For a moment, I was tempted to try some light-hearted response to the first part of the hon. Gentleman's question, but he knows that he is someone for whom I have considerable respect. I understand why he made the point, although I do not agree with the thrust of his remarks. All I would do is reiterate what was clear in everything that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said at Question Time: that the Government attach great importance to getting people back into work, but that they have a difference of opinion with those on the Opposition Front Bench as to how that is best done.

Mr. Rupert Allason: Will my right hon. Friend find time next week for a debate on tourism? Is he aware that it is now some five years since our last debate on tourism? Is he further aware that the industry is in considerable difficulty? It is hampered by daft regulations. One which is enforced by all hoteliers in Torbay is that guests are no longer allowed to take their own electrical appliances into their rooms. That means no hair dryers or electric shavers. That is the type of daft regulation which handicaps our industry. It is high time we had an opportunity to bring those matters to the attention of the House.

Mr. Newton: I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment will note the particular point that my hon. Friend embraces in his question. On the matter of a debate on tourism, I can go a little further than last week and the week before. I am actively looking for an opportunity for such a debate, but I cannot give a specific undertaking at present about precisely when it will be.

Mr. Kevin Barron: Is the Leader of the House aware that the announcement that there will be no news in next week's business about the future of British coal miners will be deeply disappointing to thousands of miners and their families? As the livelihood of 2,000 miners in my constituency is to end at the end of March and we shall be in March before an announcement has been made, could we have a statement? [Interruption.] I do not know why people are grinning about this issue when 2,000 families are being added to the thousands of other unemployed in my constituency.
Could we have a statement next week from the Department of Trade and Industry to remove the speculation and leaks in the national press which suggest that there is a form of psychological warfare against some of the finest people that there have ever been in Britain?

Mr. Newton: I can only reiterate what I said several times both earlier today and on other occasions. My right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade will make a statement following his review, which needs to be thoroughly and carefully carried out, as soon as he can do so.

Mr. Phillip Oppenheim: Will there be an opportunity in any debate next week to discuss the relevance of President Clinton's policies to Britain and British politics? As the President's policies include making student loans repayable, introducing competition into

public health care, tax cuts for the middle classes and even capital punishment, some of us on the Conservative Benches are rather surprised that those on the Labour and Liberal Front Benches seem so pathetically taken with President Clinton's policies. Is this a case of them genuinely revising their policies, or are they playing their old game of jumping on any passing bandwagon?

Madam Speaker: Order. I would be much obliged if Members would not make statements about their opinions. They should ask questions about future business of the House. Such statements delay other Members asking direct questions. I can only call all Members if one short direct question is asked, and there are short answers, please.

Mr. Newton: The short answer to my hon. Friend, despite the fact that I have considerable sympathy with the general purport of his remarks, is that the opportunity for developing those points will most likely arise in the Budget debate to which I have referred several times.

Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: Can we have an early debate on the economy? Is it not strangely ironic that the Labour party was attacked over 17 years about the role of the International Monetary Fund in our affairs in 1976, yet the IMF is now issuing instructions and making demands of the Government that they cut public expenditure and reduce the public sector borrowing requirement?

Mr. Newton: I see absolutely no parallel between the comments from the IMF and the position which the Labour Government got into in the autumn of 1976, when they had an IMF team here, in effect running the country.

Mr. Nicholas Budgen: Is my right hon. Friend aware that, if the Government deny the House a further and separate debate on amendment No. 27, the Government will add to their reputation for being crude and authoritarian towards individual Members and will demonstrate that they are cavalier and careless with the House? It will further demonstrate that the sovereignty of the British people cannot be safeguarded by parliamentary democracy. The only way in which the rights not of the House but of the British people can be safeguarded is by a referendum.

Mr. Newton: I do not, of course, agree with my hon. Friend. Several other amendments which will be discussed fall into the same category of amendments which the Government do not wish to see passed but which would not affect the capacity to ratify the treaty.

Mr. Max Madden: Will the Leader of the House consider making a statement next week on religious tolerance in the House of Commons? Is he aware that my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, East (Mr. Vaz) is delighted that the Crypt will be available for his forthcoming wedding, but dismayed to learn that the Catholic exchange of wedding vows is not allowed to take place there? Will the right hon. Gentleman use his good offices to ensure that that apparent religious intolerance is removed, thereby demonstrating that the House of Commons is firmly part of a multi-faith Britain?

Mr. Newton: I shall certainly undertake to look into that matter and establish how it can best be further considered.

Mr. Greville Janner: May we have an early debate on the tragic plight of terminally ill children? Is the Leader of the House aware of the cruel rule whereby, while hospices for adults receive nearly half their funding from national health services, hospices for children get none? The rule was revealed by the Rainbow organisation in my constituency. If we cannot have a debate on the subject, will the right hon. Gentleman undertake to ask the Secretary of State for Health whether she will consider making a statement to the House?

Mr. Newton: Perhaps it would be most sensible for me to draw the hon. Gentleman's attention to the fact that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health is due to answer questions in the House next Tuesday. He may like to try to raise the subject with her then—but of course, I shall draw what he has said today to my right hon. Friend's attention.

Mr. Roger Knapman: The fact that we have heard several expressions of concern about the likely impact of the social chapter on the British economy means that it is possible that the House may not have understood or appreciated the full import of Monday's statement. Might it not therefore be a good idea to have a day's debate on the statement next week?

Mr. Newton: I am not sure that I entirely follow my hon. Friend's remarks. In any event, it is clear from what has transpired already, both now and on other occasions, that many such points are likely to be raised next Monday. I would not wish to predict the answers that may then be given.

Mr. Jack Thompson: May I press the Leader of the House again to reconsider the prospect of an early debate or a statement on the coal industry—for the sake of the future not only of the 30,000 miners involved, but of the mining manufacturing and engineering companies? In addition, we are also awaiting a statement on mineral planning guidance note No. 3, and on the assisted areas arrangements. Those are all tied in with the response on the coal industry.

Mr. Newton: I understand the hon. Gentleman's anxiety for a statement, but, as I said in response to an earlier question, it is clearly important that the

Government's review should be thoroughly conducted. My right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade will make a statement as soon as he can, and I am not sure that much would be gained by some sort of holding statement, which is what the hon. Gentleman appears to be requesting.

Mr. Paul Flynn: Will the Leader of the House use his great influence with his Front-Bench colleagues to persuade them to concentrate and focus next Tuesday's debate on the subject of the letter signed by two recent former ambassadors to the United Nations which appeared in The Times this week? The letter called on Britain to support a comprehensive international ban on the testing of nuclear weapons. Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that Russia, the United States Congress and France have all agreed to support such a ban? Unless Britain takes such a decision, we could well be the last country in the whole world to continue to test nuclear weapons—a wasteful, costly, dangerous and polluting practice.

Mr. Newton: I am not sure whether comments on such matters could be squeezed into order on Tuesday or Wednesday next week, Madam Speaker. At any rate, I shall draw the hon. Gentleman's comments to the attention of the Foreign Secretary and others concerned.

Mr. Gordon Prentice: Following the Prime Minister's statement last week on royal taxation, is there not a case for an early debate on that important matter? Is the Leader of the House aware that Prince Edward told my local paper, the Lancashire Evening Telegraph, that speculation about the extent of royal wealth, to the tune of £6·5 billion, was "absolute crap". Is there not a case for an urgent debate to shed light on the true extent of royal finances?

Mr. Newton: I am afraid that I have not had the advantage of reading the Lancashire Evening Telegraph. I believe that one thing that is probably quite strongly felt by hon. Members on both sides of the House, whatever their views about other aspects of the matter, is that members of the royal family are as entitled as anyone else to privacy in relation to their tax affairs.

Points of Order

Mr. Simon Hughes: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. A moment ago, you were good enough to say, as you have said before, that you can call all hon. Members only if short questions are followed by short answers. You were obviously in some difficulty during Prime Minister's Question Time, which we all understood, because the Prime Minister gave an enormously long answer—

Mr. Archy Kirkwood: A considered one.

Mr. Hughes: Yes, a considered, prepared answer, which was read out. Perhaps you will be kind enough, Madam Speaker, to call for the tape of Question Time to see how long it took to give that answer; it certainly took well over one minute, if not two.
"Erskine May" obviously allows Ministers to read answers. I should like to preface my remarks by reading a short quote from page 295:
An answer should be confined to the points contained in the question, with such explanation only as renders the answer intelligible"—
that would give you, Madam Speaker, an opportunity to intervene quite often—
though a certain latitude is permitted to Ministers of the Crown".
Then a footnote says:
For example, the rules governing the reading out of material and quotations from speeches at question time do not apply to Ministerial replies.
May I ask you to consider the general issue whether the reading of answers by those on the Front Bench has gone beyond a quote from a speech or a press release and become a new form of question and answer?
In due time, will you say something to the House, Madam Speaker, that will mean that we can do what you want us to do, so that we can get through many more questions and answers? Above all, we should have the opportunity to question the Prime Minister and other Ministers and hear their answers and not those of civil servants, scriptwriters or Tory central office. I hope that such a change would improve proceedings. At an appropriate moment, I ask you to make an announcement, in the presence and hearing of the Prime Minister and other Ministers on the Front Bench.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: Further to that point of order, Madam Speaker.

Mr. Alex Salmond: On a point of order, Madam Speaker.

Mr. John Bowis: Further to that point of order, Madam Speaker.

Madam Speaker: If it is a further point of order, I shall hear the hon. Member for Battersea (Mr. Bowis), and then I shall take the point of order from the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett).

Mr. Bowis: I too have heard your requests, Madam Speaker, for shorter speeches and questions. I suffered for the third time today of having a question on the list for Prime Minister's questions, but it was not reached because we did not get past No. 4. Excellent as my right hon.

Friend's answer was—I enjoyed hearing it, as we all did —and following the suggestion of the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes), would you consider looking at the number of times on which the Leader of the Opposition can rephrase his question having got it wrong the first time? When it is necessary for him to have three bites at the cherry, it may be an occasion for you to have a stopwatch and to add a bit of injury time so that we can get further down the list of questions.

Mr. Bennett: Would you consider, Madam Speaker, not just the points that have just been made, but your comment to the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey that you would take his original point of order at the end of business questions?
When you and I first entered the House, it was fairly common for points of order to be raised when the incident in question actually happened. I believe that "Erskine May" suggests that one should raise the matter at the earliest opportunity. I am well aware that there was some abuse of the procedure, when people tried to use points of order to rephrase their questions or to put new questions. Therefore, it became the tendency for the Speaker to say, "Can it not wait until the end?" It became the convention for people to wait until the end of business questions, wherever possible, to raise their point of order.
I thought that you were now almost suggesting, Madam Speaker, that it was impossible for hon. Members to raise points of order during Question Time. I suggest—

Madam Speaker: What is the point of order?

Mr. Bennett: There is a danger in that tendency. The hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey had a valid, immediate point of order that could be answered only by taking it during Prime Minister's Question Time, because the Prime Minister was abusing his rights to answer those questions.
I suggest, Madam Speaker, that, if you are not prepared on occasion to accept points of order at the instant they occur, hon. Members will have to look for other means of redress. One such means is shouting, which you and I deplore. There are other procedures, such as "I spy strangers." I suggest that, sparingly, it might be better—as I say, very occasionally, as on this occasion—to take a point of order at the moment when the incident occurs during Question Time, rather than insist on it being left till the end.

Madam Speaker: I have a point of order from the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond).

Mr. Salmond: You, Madam Speaker, are not responsible for speakers being long-winded. The most succinct way for me to put my point might be to say that, if the length of the Prime Minister's answers are becoming such as to preclude the asking of Prime Minister's questions, that must constitute an abuse.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: Further to that point of order, Madam Speaker. As it was decided some time ago that only 10 questions to the Prime Minister should appear on the Order Paper, do you think it would be a good idea to change the system to oblige the Prime Minister to answer the 10 questions? If he took extra time to answer them, that would be his problem, but he would have to get through the 10. That would ensure hon. Members whose


names had been drawn out of the ballot would have a chance to ask their questions. By that means, a Prime Minister could not filibuster. To help in that process, Ministers might be instructed not to use civil service briefs. They should have to answer questions and deal with matters in the way we on the Back Benches have to operate, in an extemporaneous fashion.

Madam Speaker: For a start, the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) might like to raise the subject of his point of order with the Leader of the Opposition.
The House is well aware of my concern to get through the Order Paper. I appreciate the disappointment felt by hon. Members whose questions appear on the Order Paper, particularly at Prime Minister's Question Time, but are not reached.
As the hon.Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) is aware, I have no control over the length of answers. From time to time I appeal to hon. Members for short questions and answers so that we might make progress.
At the time when the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey first raised his point of order, nothing irregular had happened: there had been no breach of our Standing Orders or usual procedures. I had an idea of the subject about which he wished to raise a point of order, but there was no breach at that time.
I draw to his attention and that of the House a ruling given by the then Speaker in 1987, when he said that he proposed
to revert to the well-tried practice of earlier times and to take points of order, except on any matters needing my immediate intervention, such as breaches of the sub judice rule, or for short notifications by a dissatisfied Member that he intends to raise a certain matter on the Adjournment, in their proper place, which is after all proceedings on private notice questions, statements and Standing Order No. 20 applications".—[Official Report, 12 February 1987; Vol. 110, c. 459–460.]
That is why points of order are taken at the end of Question Time, otherwise there would not be much time for hon. Members to ask questions.
I appreciate, and share, the concern of the House. We are all anxious to make our views known and to receive good and speedy responses. I shall reflect on the points that have been put to me today.

Mr. Simon Hughes: I am grateful for that ruling, Madam Speaker. Will you consider whether the phrase about a certain latitude being allowed to Ministers will eventually require some direction and guidance from you? Otherwise, in theory, it would be in order for a Minister to spend 10 minutes reading from a press release when giving an answer.

Madam Speaker: I hope that the House will allow me to reflect on the matter and to look into all the points that have been put to me.

STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS, &c

Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 101(3) (Standing Committees on Statutory Instruments &amp;c.).

MEDICINES CONTROL AGENCY

That the draft Medicines Control Agency Trading Fund Order 1993 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.—[Mr. Arbuthnot.]

Question agreed to.

Orders of the Day — Foreign Compensation (Amendment) Bill [Lords]

Order for Second Reading read.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Mark Lennox-Boyd): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
The House has before it a short technical Bill to amend the Foreign Compensation Act 1950. The Bill received its Second and Third Readings in the other place on 5 November and 3 December 1992. It enables the Foreign Compensation Commission to act in those cases where Her Majesty's Government receive or expect to receive compensation for losses overseas from or through an international organisation or tribunal.
The key reason for the Bill is to cope with claims against Iraq as a result of its unlawful invasion and occupation of Kuwait in August 1990. As an independent statutory quasi-judicial body, the Foreign Compensation Commission is able to bring special administrative and legal skills into the determination of individual claims that the Government have espoused and into the equitable disbursement of any funds received in settlement. However, as the explanatory memorandum to the Bill explains, the Foreign Compensation Commission may be empowered to act only where the Government enter into an agreement under which compensation is to be paid by another country, or in anticipation of such an agreement.
When the Foreign Compensation Act was passed in 1950, it was not anticipated that there would be a situation in which compensation would flow through an international organisation or tribunal. We now face that very situation, as a consequence of Iraq's unlawful invasion and occupation of Kuwait. It is for that reason that the Bill comes before the House. It replaces section 3 of the 1950 Act with a new section which will enable Her Majesty to provide, by Order in Council, for the Foreign Compensation Commission to act in circumstances in which the Government receive compensation paid by another country or by an international organisation or tribunal.
Provision for the commission to act will also be possible where receipt of such compensation is contemplated. There will no longer be a requirement that an agreement with another country must be concluded or contemplated before provision is made for the Compensation Commission to act. Nor will compensation have to be paid directly by another country.
I need to explain how the claims following the Iraqi war are being handled, in order to explain the practical effect of the amendment. Under the provisions of Security Council resolution 687 of 1991, the Security Council established the United Nations Compensation Commission and a compensation fund and that new United Nations body is mandated by resolution 687 to receive claims for damage or injury to individuals, Governments or corporations as a result of Iraq's unlawful invasion, and occupation of Kuwait.
The policy-making body of the new United Nations commission is the governing council, which has the same membership as the Security Council. Since July 1991, it has drawn up the detailed criteria for eligible claims and claimants, and established the commission's procedures. Claimants submit claims to their Governments who forward them to the United Nations Compensation Commission. The commissioners will recommend to the governing council allocations of compensation to Governments. Governments will then distribute compensation between their claimants.
While the majority of claims will be for fixed amounts under expedited procedures, we cannot be certain whether the commission will nominate specific amounts for individual claimants or companies in every other case, or whether there will ever be occasions when Governments are given overall sums to distribute between their claimants. Particularly in the case of large or complex claims, the Government will need to be prepared to adjudicate claims and decide on the distribution of compensation. Amending the Foreign Compensation Act in the way proposed will provide us with the appropriate means to do that, by authorising the Foreign Compensation Commission to undertake the task.
Other Governments are making similar arrangements and I trust that the Bill will commend itself to the House.

Mr. George Robertson: I welcome the Bill. I am sure that the entire House—there are numerous Members in the Chamber—will agree that it is uncontentious. It will agree also, I am sure, that it was right in the situation in which the Government found themselves—especially in relation to collecting information on compensation claims and distributing payments —that the Government should find the appropriate mechanism. Existing legislation, deficient as it is, is the ideal vehicle. We welcome the fact that the Government are using an existing institution and existing legislation to deal with the problem that has arisen.
The battle for Kuwait, following the illegal annexation by Iraq, is some time behind us, though its legacy lingers on in so many different ways. The Bill seeks to deal with the reparations that arise from Security Council resolution 687, whereby Iraq must contribute to compensating those who lost their assets, livelihoods, and in many instances, their personal possessions as a result of the annexation. None of us should underestimate the pain and suffering of so many people in the area as a result of Saddam Hussein's illegal policies.
One of the remarkable features of this minor piece of legislation is the speed with which the United Nations has been able to move. The Foreign Compensation Commission has moved with enormous speed, given the way in which the United Nations has had to work in the past. It is quickly getting to grips with an extremely serious issue. It is good that the British Government have been able to find a mechanism so early on for handling claims and I hope, eventually, payments.
I should like to know precisely how much money will be available. The Minister has told us how many claims there are likely to be and how many of them are likely to be British; it will be quite a large number. Quite a few British

citizens worked in the area and many claims will be made on their behalf. The principal source of compensation moneys will be the oil revenues that Iraq can gain from its supplies. It was given permission to start delivering oil, and all revenues from the oil shipments were to go to the United Nations. At least 70 per cent. of the revenues were to be remitted to the commission.
It is my understanding that precious little oil is being exported from Iraq. Little, therefore, is as yet available to settle the compensation cases that we are talking about. The unwillingness of Iraq to use its oil to gain revenues and to gain contributions for itself stands in marked contrast to the complaints that are made by the Iraqi Government about the penalties that are being imposed on their country by the world community. It stands also—not for the first time—in stark contrast to the pain and suffering that are still being experienced by the poor, benighted population of Iraq, which could well do with the resources that would be available if Iraq took the opportunity to export the limited amount of oil that is available.
I am therefore presuming that the bulk of the assets so far available to the commission will be coming from the sequestration of assets previously held by Iraq in the west and frozen by Security Council resolutions. It would be interesting to know precisely how much is still available through that means.
It is estimated that the claims that are likely to be made to the commission will amount to about £50 billion. The maximum that is likely to be obtained through oil revenues and subventions will produce a mere £3·5 billion per annum. I am sure that the Minister will be able to confirm those figures, which I obtained from the March 1992 edition of Law Times. If this is the case, clearly the ability of the commission to settle anything but a fraction of the compensation cases in the short term will be extremely limited. It will be many years before all these compensation cases are likely to be settled, however quickly the commission works.
Having made those few remarks and welcomed the Bill and the expedition of the process, I hope that the Minister will understand that the Opposition believe that the speed with which the process can be carried out and resources can be given to the commission will be the biggest test ahead.

Mr. Bob Cryer: The Bill contains powers to make subordinate legislation by Order in Council. Orders in Council are not made by the Queen, although that is the rubric that is used. They are made by a group of Ministers meeting in the Privy Council, and that can be as few as two or three.
We all welcome provision for the awarding of compensation, but this is a fairly controversial area. Some people will feel that they qualify for compensation when the criteria that the commission lays down through the order—or which Her Majesty lays down by Order in Council—may not embrace such people. The whole of clause 1(2) relates to the conditions that must be fulfilled in order to qualify for compensation. That is clearly an area of some controversy, because some people will feel that they are eligible, whereas the Order in Council may rule them out.
I should, therefore, like to know from the Minister before the Bill slips through the House virtually unnoticed


what further parliamentary procedures the Orders in Council will be subject to. One of the strengths of the Commons is that people have some recourse when there is a conflict between an institution established to set out criteria, as under the Bill, and the criteria that some people feel should apply to them. It is on those occasions that some parliamentary scrutiny is of advantage.
If an Order in Council is made, will it be subject to further parliamentary scrutiny of any kind? Will the Minister be open to representations from people outside the categories laid down by the criteria in clause 1(2), or will it be beyond any kind of negotiation?
These are minor matters in a minor Bill which is designed to enable compensation to be paid. I am not objecting to it, but there are too many occasions on which too much delegated legislation is given to too many Ministers, and I believe that, where there is the opportunity, we should raise these questions so that at some future date we are not confronted with the necessity, if criteria need to be changed, of making another Order in Council. Of all the procedures of delegating powers, the Order in Council procedure tends to be the most arcane, and I believe that we should make things as open and democratic and as subject to the scrutiny of the House as possible.

Mr. James Molyneaux: I apologise for intervening towards the end of the hon. Member's timely speech. He will know that Northern Ireland in its entirety is governed by Orders in Council. If we are very lucky, we get a 90-minute debate.
Coming to the relevant point, there is no possibility of amendment. In fact, on one occasion when the former right hon. Member for South Down, Mr. Enoch Powell, pointed out a printer's error in an Order in Council, the Minister acknowledged that it was a printer's error but it could not be altered even when the House entirely agreed that it was an error; it had to return to the Privy Council. Real scrutiny and the possibility of any amendment are absolutely nil.

Mr. Cryer: That is one problem with delegated legislation. Except in one or two minor cases, such as census legislation, primary legislation cannot be amended. Indeed, some of my remarks would not be relevant if delegated powers could be amended.
As Chairman of the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments and the Select Committee on Statutory Instruments, I find that we are often confronted with instruments which are badly drafted and which give to Ministers powers not provided by the primary legislation. In other words, they are ultra vires and the terms are ambiguous.
That happens only with a minority of instruments, but they may affect people's lives—no more so than in a case where the person is seeking compensation for injury or loss, but, because of bad drafting or a lack of awareness by those who drafted the instrument and those who subsequently rubber-stamped it, the framework cannot be amended.
Recently we had an example at the Joint Committee. Two Ministers had signed identical statutory instruments produced by their Departments. In both cases the instruments had been altered, apparently after signature. When Ministers are presented with instruments to sign, it

is conceivable that, because they have a pile of documents before them, they do not scrutinise the instruments as minutely as they should. That is how mistakes happen.
We are talking about legal documents with legal enforcement. If the documents do not cover all cases, some may be excluded by virtue of that definition. I seek information from the Minister. There are real problems with delegated legislation. The Minister is probably aware, and I hope that he is trying to do something about it, that in 1992 the Government produced more statutory instruments than any other Government in the history of Parliament. They produced just under 3,500 instruments, which is 10 every day. Therefore, I am using the opportunity to seek information and to remind Ministers that, while there is a need for delegated powers, there is also a need for scrutiny.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I am grateful to the hon. Members for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson) and for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) and to the right hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Mr. Molyneaux) for their contributions. I shall do my best to comment on all the points that have been made.
In response to the hon. Member for Hamilton, we expect some 3,000 British claims in all, 2,000 from individuals and the remainder from companies. More than 1,000 British claims have already been forwarded by the Foreign Office to the commission. Most are for loss of personal possessions, but many are for mental pain and anguish and, in some cases, injury suffered by former British hostages at the hands of Saddam Hussein. Prisoners of war ill treated by the Iraqis are also eligible to claim.
On the payment of claims, the hon. Gentleman asked me to explain two figures, £50 billion and £3·5 million. Under a Security Council resolution claims will be paid from a percentage, initially 30 per cent. of Iraq's oil export revenue. Before the 1990 invasion, Iraq's gross export earnings amounted to some $15 billion a year. Under resolutions 706 and 712 of the Security Council Iraq was permitted to export up to $ 1.6 billion worth of oil. The revenue would go into a special United Nations escrow account, which is immune from attachment of Iraqi funds by other creditors.
That is the position that the United Nations established, but, as we all know, Iraq has so far refused to resume the exporting of oil—at least, officially. As a result, the Security Council adopted on 2 October resolution 778, which authorises the sequestration of certain unencumbered frozen Iraqi assets—outside Iraq, of course—to be used in the same way as the oil revenues under the resolutions that I mentioned earlier. Of United States moneys sequestered, some $21 million has been placed in the United Nations for use by the compensation commission, and more is expected from that source.
There is not yet any estimate of the total number of claims. Thus, it is very difficult to say at this stage whether there will be enough money. It is clear that there is not enough in funds released into the escrow account so far. However, we are maintaining pressure on the Iraqi Government to export oil for their own benefit and to meet their obligations under United Nations resolutions.
I have been asked whether certain Export Credits Guarantee Department loans will be covered. It is important to establish that all losses must be eligible.


There are certain ineligible losses. For instance, losses arising from the situation caused by the United Nations embargo are not eligible. To be eligible, losses must be direct. Any loss that can be established to have arisen directly from Iraq's invasion and occupation of Kuwait —whether a business or a private loss—will be eligible. Of course, any debt existing before 3 August 1990 will not be eligible under these procedures. We expect about 800 British business claims. These will be eligible if they satisfy the direct loss criteria.

Mr. George Robertson: I should like to take the Minister back briefly to the question of debts that existed before the invasion. Clearly, any failure involving the ECGD would be an outstanding foreign debt constituting an Iraqi liability. From recent developments and discussions, we know that the rate of failure involving the ECGD in respect of contracts delivered, or intended to be delivered, from this country to Iraq is fairly substantial.
I wonder whether the Minister, either today or in writing at a later date, can give me the latest estimate of the proportion of Iraq's foreign debt that is accounted for by British ECGD cover where there was failure.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I shall write to the hon. Gentleman with that information. These compensation arrangements do not, of course, apply to debts incurred before August 1990.
I fully appreciate the desire of the hon. Member for Bradford, South to remind Ministers and the House of the need for parliamentary scrutiny of all procedures. However, the purpose of the Bill is to bring the Foreign Compensation Act 1950 up to date to deal with the Iraqi situation. We are not proposing to give the Executive any powers that are not available to them under the Act of 1950. We are seeking to secure compensation not under direct bilateral agreement with the Government concerned, as under the 1950 Act, but from the United Nations under the provisions established by Security

Council resolutions. The existing powers, with the available scrutiny measures, have operated satisfactorily. I might mention, as an example, recent settlements with the former Soviet Union, which are among the most prominent of recent years.
The Orders in Council will be subject to the usual parliamentary scrutiny, as under the 1950 Act. I am afraid that the negative resolution procedure will be adopted—again as under the 1950 Act— but I can assure the hon. Gentleman that any representations made by parliamentarians or by those acting on behalf of claimants will be considered most carefully by the Foreign Office. There will be a great deal of interest and publicity.
The Government intend that most of the work in connection with these compensation claims will be handled by officers of the United Nations compensation fund, rather than by officers of the British compensation commission. We are giving powers to the British commission lest claims be dealt with by the United Nations fund in a generalised way, with the detail of arrangements and distribution to be determined by the British commission. The provisions of section 2(2), to which the hon. Gentleman referred, are substantially administrative. The substantive criteria will be decided by the United Nations body.
I hope that I have dealt satisfactorily with the points raised by hon. Members.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time, and committed to a Standing Committee, pursuant to Standing Order No. 61 (Committal of Bills).

Orders of the Day — FOREIGN COMPENSATION (AMENDMENT) BILL [LORDS] [MONEY]

Queen's Recommendation having been signified—

Resolved,
That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Foreign Compensation (Amendment) Bill [Lords], it is expedient to authorise the payment out of money provided by Parliament of any increase attibutable to the provisions of the Act in the sums so payable under the Foreign Compensation Act 1950—[Mr.Kirkhope.]

Appropriation (Northern Ireland)

The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (Mr. Michael Mates): I beg to move,
That the draft Appropriation (Northern Ireland) Order 1993, which was laid before this House on 15th February, be approved.
The draft order has two purposes. The first is to authorise expenditure of £80 million in the 1992–93 spring supplementary estimates. This will bring total estimates provision for Northern Ireland departmental services to £5,094 million for this financial year. The second purpose is to authorise the vote on account of £2,376 million for 1993–94, to enable the services of Northern Ireland Departments to continue until the 1993–94 main estimates are brought before the house later this year.
Details of the sums sought are given in the estimates booklet and the "Statement of Sums Required on Account" which, as usual, are available in the Vote Office.
Within the estimates, many of the votes seek token increases only because new pressures have been offset by savings elsewhere in the vote. To give hon. Members the maximum time, I shall refer only to the main areas where supplementary provision is sought. In the Department of Agriculture's vote 1, a token increase of £1,000 is required to reflect expenditure trends in capital grant schemes. The sum of £2 million is for additional commitments under the agriculture and horticulture development scheme. This is offset by reduced requirements under the farm and conservation grant scheme, where the uptake of grants has been lower than predicted.
The Department's vote 2 also shows a token increase of £1,000. That reflects various reallocations within the vote, including a £200,000 increase for fees to private veterinarians under the disease eradication programme. An additional £370,000 is for watercourse management, including flood defence, and £250,000 for the forestry service.
Token increases are sought for four votes in the Department of Economic Development In vote 1, an additional £5·8 million is for new inward investment projects. That reflects the Industrial Development Board's success in attracting internationally competitive companies. A recent example is Pan European Textiles, which will create up to 500 jobs. A net increase of £5 million is sought for assistance to Short Brothers plc. That additional expenditure is offset by savings elsewhere in the vote, including a £3·2 million reduction in industrial development grants, reflecting lower than anticipated claims. Due to slippage on a contract, there is a reduced requirement of £7·8 million in relation to assistance to Harland and Wolff Holdings plc. That will now fall to be paid in 1993–94.
In vote 2, £1·7 million is sought for the industrial research and technology unit, and £1 million for assistance to the Northern Ireland tourist industry. It is encouraging that initial indications of visitor numbers in 1992, estimated at 1·24 million, show a further increase on the previous year's record performance of 1·18 million. Also in this vote, £1 million is required to cover the additional costs of clearing the Ormeau road gas works site in Belfast. Those increases are offset by savings elsewhere in the vote.

They include £5·5 million reflecting the Local Enterprise Development Unit's accelerated implementation of its new strategic approach to financial assistance.
In vote 3, which covers the training and employment agency, an additional £4·7 million is required to meet in full the demand for training places under the youth training programme. Offsetting savings have been found elsewhere in the vote.
Finally, in the Department of Economic Development, additional provision is sought in vote 4 to meet expenses incurred in the privatisation of the electricity supply industry in Northern Ireland. Those are being met from the proceeds of the sale of the generating stations earlier in the year.
The Department of the Environment requires a token estimate in vote 1. That reflects a redistribution of resources within the roads programme. Some £700,000 is for minor roads schemes.
In vote 2, covering housing, additional net provision of £14·4 million is sought. Hon. Members will recall that an additional £18 million was made available under the house purchase scheme announced in the Chancellor's autumn statement. Increases in the vote are offset by receipts of £3 million from sales under the co-ownership scheme and housing association rents.
Vote 3, covering expenditure on water and sewerage, shows a token increase of £1,000. That reflects various reallocations within the vote and includes an additional £7·6 million for capital expenditure on sewerage services. That includes the first stage of the replacement of Belfast's century-old sewage treatment plant at Duncrue street. The estimated total cost of the project at present prices is £67 million. Increases are offset by reductions elsewhere and by increased receipts.
The token provision sought in vote 4 reflects an increase of £2 million for community economic regeneration schemes, which continue to be targeted at areas of social, economic and environmental need. Additional provision is also sought for Belfast action teams and for caravan sites for travelling people.
The Department of Education seeks a net increase of £7 million for vote 1—£6·2 million is for grants to education and library boards, including the increased cost of school teachers' salaries, and £2·3 million is for voluntary grammar and grant-maintained integrated schools. The Schools Examination and Assessment Council seeks £1·1 million, mainly in connection with education reforms. Those increases are offset by reduced requirements, including £2·5 million for the repayment of loans.
In vote 2, £1·8 million is sought for the increased uptake of student loans and an increase in the cost of postgraduate student awards. Resources have also been reallocated within the universities and colleges of education sections.
The Department of Health and Social Services seeks a net increase of £13·2 million in vote 1. The main increase of £11·7 million is for the family health services, to meet increased costs in pharmaceutical and general dental services and £6·2 million is for increases in capital expenditure. Those increases are offset by increased receipts, including £2·6 million from health service contributions.
Additional net provision of £3 million is required in vote 3. This includes £9·7 million for increased expenditure on housing benefits, rent allowances and rent and rates


rebates. Those increases are offset by reductions elsewhere and by increased receipts of £5 million from the national insurance fund.
Finally, in vote 4, which covers social security, £40.4 million is sought to meet increases in the numbers receiving a wide range of benefits, including attendance and disability allowances and income support.
In my opening remarks I have drawn attention to the main provisions of the order. In replying to the debate the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond and Barnes (Mr. Hanley), will respond to the points raised by hon. Members. I commend the order to the House.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Morris): It might be helpful if I made it clear that the debate on the order may cover all matters for which Northern Ireland Departments, as distinct from the Northern Ireland Office, are responsible. Police and security are the principal excluded subjects, but I am sure that hon. Members are well aware of that.

Mr. Roger Stott: I am grateful to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for setting out the permitted subjects for debate. I intend to address most of my remarks to the condition of the economy in Northern Ireland.
Today's debate takes place in the shadow of new unemployment figures showing that more than 3 million men and women are now out of work in the United Kingdom. In Northern Ireland, the figure stands at a disastrous 108,000. Ministers have previously found comfort in the fact that Northern Ireland was not as ravaged by the recession as the rest of the United Kingdom had been. However, the growing unemployment queues in the Province should send strong signals to the Government that it is time for them to awaken from their complacent slumbers.
The Minister of State, the hon. Member for South Ribble (Mr. Atkins), recently described the unemployment figures for December as merely "disappointing". What is disappointing is the Government's apparent contentment to sit back and wait for recovery in Northern Ireland to bloom when it will.
During 1992, the total number of unemployed in the Province increased by more than 4,000, and accounted for 14·7 per cent. of the work force. That is the highest figure of any region within the United Kingdom. It is one league table where I would be happy to see the Province at the bottom.
The Minister will no doubt be aware that the economic forecasts for the coming months are just as dismal as the Government's record on unemployment. I refer the hon. Gentleman to the Coopers and Lybrand annual economic review published last month, which makes depressing reading. It predicts that up to 6,000 jobs will be lost this year in the Province, and warns that Northern Ireland's economy can well expect a zero growth rate in 1993.
Another report that was published last year by the PA Economic Review of Cambridge said that the jobless total will climb
without respite as output from the Province's manufacturing and agricultural sectors continues to decline.

According to the report, more than 100,000 manufacturing jobs and 8,000 people employed in farming, fishing and forestry could lose their jobs during the next 10 years.
The underlying weakness of the Northern Ireland economy and the Province's high rate of population increase mean that the 1990s will be an extremely difficult decade. The report's author, Mr. Colin Warnoch, concluded:
The outlook for the next decade and beyond is not good.
He warns the Government against making cuts in the real value of public expenditure.
Under such circumstances, the Government should be taking decisive and positive action. Instead of a concerted effort to treat the causes of unemployment, we have been treated to the musings of the Prime Minister, who wishes to clear the unemployed out of job interviews, when they can get them, and on to the streets to be engaged in community service. Of course, that would not provide the unemployed with any more remuneration or the chance of a real job, but apparently it furnishes them with the satisfaction of knowing that they are serving their own community. I thought that the Prime Minister's performance at the Dispatch Box this afternoon, when my right hon. and learned Friend the Leader of the Opposition raised the issue of unemployment, was nothing less than an insult to those 3 million people who have been thrown on the scrap heap by his Government.
The Government should be serving the people of Northern Ireland by investing in communities which continue to suffer the waste of unemployment. I am sure that the Minister would wish to tell the House how he thinks that the schemes proposed by the Prime Minister will help the unemployed in Strabane, who represent 23 per cent. of the work force; or the unemployed in Derry, who represent 20 per cent. of the work force; or the unemployed in Belfast, who represent 21 per cent. of the work force in that city. In neglecting to tackle unemployment, the Government are neglecting the rich potential within every individual in every part of the Province.
The one true resource which the Government insist on leaving untapped is the people of Northern Ireland, who are left with the frustration of knowing that the Secretary of State is as content to let the Province slip into economic decline as his Cabinet colleagues have been to see the rest of the United Kingdom languish in recession. It is clear that the contempt that the Prime Minister and his colleagues show towards the unemployed is equalled only by the contempt with which they treat the low-paid.
On 6 November last year, at column 431 of Hansard, the Secretary of State announced his intention to table an order to abolish wages councils in Northern Ireland. Almost 34,500 workers in Northern Ireland are covered by wages councils. The majority of those people are women and are almost exclusively the only wage earners in their households. Those people covered by wages councils agreements are among the poorest paid workers in the Province.
Tonight is not the occasion to address the issue in detail, but the Minister should be aware that the Opposition will oppose such a move with as much vigour as we have for the rest of the United Kingdom. I hope that I will have the support of hon. Members representing the Province.

Rev. Martin Smyth: In the light of his comments, will the hon. Gentleman acknowledge that, with so many people on low wages, Northern Ireland can be described as a low-wage economy, and that, in that sense, it has not been attracting the investments that we were told low-wage economies attract?

Mr. Stott: The hon. Gentleman makes the point better than I could. I very much hope that, when the Secretary of State brings the order to the House—I understand that it will be subject to the procedure—and we pray against it, we will have the opportunity to debate the matter on the Floor of the House.

Mr. David Trimble: I very much welcome the hon. Gentleman's commitment that the Opposition will pray against that order when it is laid. I hope that it will be the beginning of a practice that the Opposition will regularly follow in praying against negative resolution orders. As the hon. Gentleman knows, a high proportion of Northern Ireland legislation is made by negative resolution orders, which means that it is never debated. That scandal cannot be allowed to continue.

Mr. Stott: I hear what the hon. Member says. I cannot give him an explicit commitment that we will do that every time, but when the matter warrants it, as the matter of wages councils does, we will do everything we can to ensure that it is debated on the Floor of the House of Commons.
Earlier this week, I was invited to meet representatives of the Northern Ireland Co-operative Development Agency. I am pleased to tell the House that I spent an enjoyable and informative morning in Derry visiting a few of the worthwhile local projects which the agency has been instrumental in establishing and sustaining. However, I am deeply concerned that the future of this vital agency is currently under review.
Allowing the agency to close would simply further widen the credibility gap between the Government's claims to be concerned with developing local businesses and economics and the reality of their policies. The Minister is no doubt aware that significant improvements in strategy have already been made by the agency in recent years.
The KMPG report recognises that the agency
is now in a position where it has established a mission statement, developed a list of objectives and outlined its strategy for achieving these objectives—none of which was in place in 1988".
Given the importance which the Government rightly attach to value for money, I am sure that the Minister also welcomes the statement that
the vast majority of client enterprises considered NICDA's services to be highly appropriate and of a high quality'.
Again, that was from the Government's own report.
The agency is responsible for local projects as diverse as environmental development and developing interests and opportunities in music and the arts. Its value is without question. It has been in a position to assist the growing number of individuals, groups and organisations now entrusting themselves to the principles of co-operation and the notion of community ownership in the process of social and economic development.
The individuals I met earlier this week are mainly drawn from marginalised communities—areas which have little or no history of economic development; or infrastructure. Their motivation has been the desire not for personal profit, but to create community confidence and

hope that it is possible to initiate jobs and enterprise to fight back against the social consequences of poverty, unemployment, neglect and the socio-economic and political realities which face most disadvantaged communities.

Mr. David Porter: I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Gentleman's rhetoric, which is quite entertaining, but some five minutes ago he asked the Government to take positive and decisive action on unemployment in the Province. I am waiting to hear what positive and dramatic action the Government can take. In formulating his reply to me and the House, perhaps the hon. Gentleman might take into account the fact that the Government have taken considerable measures to help the Province. I would draw attention to those relating to Shorts and to Harland and Wolff, which would not have happened on the mainland. If the Opposition have a policy for decisive action, the House would be grateful to know what it is supposed to be.

Mr. Stott: The hon. Gentleman frequently attends Northern Ireland debates; we are old sparring partners. I refer him to several speeches and publications which my hon. Friend the shadow Chancellor has been producing since the turn of the year, setting out a detailed analysis of how we would go about creating jobs and a proper industrial strategy. Most of those proposals would benefit the people of Northern Ireland.
If the Government pursue their intention to close the Co-operative Development Agency or drastically reduce its budget, Northern Ireland will become the only region within the European Community without specific funding for the promotion of co-operative development. I therefore strongly urge the Minister to review the policy towards the Co-operative Development Agency and facilitate a partnership between the agency, the Local Enterprise Development Unit and the Department of Economic Development.
Of course, the lack of Government initiative in helping local economies to develop is symptomatic of a broader economic non-policy. When the Government withdrew from the exchange rate mechanism, the policy void was filled with nothing more than a broad grimace from the Chancellor of the Exchequer. Confidence in the Government's ability to manage the economy is falling in the Province, as highlighted by the Coopers and Lybrand report. It concludes that one third of local businesses are unsure when recovery will occur:
The manufacturing sector tends to be more gloomy than the service sector, with 50 per cent. being uncertain and the majority of the rest of the opinion that economic recovery will not come for some time to come.
The report warns:
The local economy still remains well below the UK average, and indeed most of the other regions, in terms of all indicators of economic growth.
That lack of confidence and lack of growth has been met by a lack of Government action. The only dogmatic policy that still seems to be on the agenda in Northern Ireland is privatisation. The Government are intent on making the people of the Province pay for their mismanagement of the economy. They are doing nothing more than plundering the utilities for fast cash. That is the quick-fix, short-term solution.
There is no more acute example of the consumer having to pay for Government failure than the flotation of Northern Ireland Electricity. The Electricity Consumer Council recently obtained information suggesting that the


price of electricity is likely to rise by a huge 15 per cent. after privatisation. Under those circumstances, I can understand the Minister's reluctance to meet the group to discuss the likely effects of Government plans, but instead of ploughing relentlessly through representations by individual and business electricity users, the Government should come clean with Northern Ireland consumers. How does the Minister think that a significant rise in electricity prices will cultivate any increase in confidence among the Province's big users?
If the Government privatise and float off Northern Ireland Electricity, and if the increased price that I quoted is correct, what impact will that have on the Province's future employment patterns?

Mr. Roy Beggs: If the hon. Gentleman's assertion is correct, it will sound alarms throughout Northern Ireland industry. The threat of a 25 per cent. phased increase in electricity charges over the next three years was enough for some manufacturers to consider pulling out of Northern Ireland and relocating to the mainland. If charges increase by another 15 per cent., as the hon. Gentleman has implied, that will systematically kill off employment opportunities and existing industries.

Mr. Stott: The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. In my discussions with primary users—industries using more than 1 MW—I learned of their fears, and that they may consider it necessary to relocate elsewhere, where energy costs are much cheaper. The consumer council, which believes that figure of 15 per cent. to be correct, wants to meet the Northern Ireland Minister responsible for privatising the electricity industry, but I understand that he has not seen its representatives. When he does so, perhaps he will confirm or deny the figure that I have just read into the record.
I return to the subject of investing in people. Of the total unemployed in Northern Ireland, 27·8 per cent. are under the age of 25, and almost 58 per cent. are under the age of 34. That is a scandalous figure, and one of which the Government should be deeply ashamed. In the light of those statistics, one would have thought that educating the young would be at the top of the Government's list. Instead, they have thrown the education service into turmoil. By trying to push on with so-called education reforms in Northern Ireland, the Government have precipitated something approaching a crisis.
I am glad to see that the Minister responsible for Northern Ireland education in his place. The Minister and his colleagues thought that they knew best—certainly the Minister's predecessor thought that he knew best. They did not listen to the deep concerns expressed by right hon. and hon. Members when the relevant order was debated three years ago, and nor did they listen to the professionals —the teachers themselves. As a result, the Government have been forced to review, back-track and delay. They have left teaching staff in an uncertain no man's land, doing their level best to provide decent education for the children in their care.
I remind the Minister that the former Minister of State, the hon. Member for Peterborough (Dr. Mawhinney), said that his frequent contacts with teachers had convinced him that the vast majority were impatient to get their hands on the new programmes of study and to make a start on

implementing them. Since then, the Government's enthusiasm appears to have waned. In a recent study by Queen's university, Belfast, 93·6 per cent. of school principals strongly agreed that the implementation of the reform programme has been a disaster.
It is time also that the Government listened to the economic heartbeat of the Province. Northern Ireland needs new life breathed into its infrastructure and into its demoralised people—those who are unemployed and who have no prospect of being re-employed. Northern Ireland needs investment and real co-operation between the Government, industry, and the community. Most of all, we need the Government to enable the people of the Province to utilise all the energies, skills and potential that we know them to have.
Sadly, judging by the Government's performance not just this year, last year or the year before that but for the past 14 years, they have failed not only the people of the United Kingdom in providing worthwhile jobs but the people of Northern Ireland.

Mr. William Ross: It is unusual to have so much time to debate next year's budget for Northern Ireland. We could spend a great deal longer doing so if even more time were available, because we are debating the nitty gritty. Because there is a lack of any democratic responsibility at any level in Northern Ireland, everything lands on the desks of Northern Ireland Ministers—should we choose to put it there. That serves them right, because they know perfectly well what could be done to devolve power to various locally elected people, but for the past 20 years they have failed to do it.
The order, which was laid on 15 February, highlights again the wholly undemocratic nature of the way in which Northern Ireland is run. We have been saying that for many years, and I am sure that the Minister understands that as well as we do. I hope that the Minister and his colleagues will get their finger out and move towards democracy in the Province. The unrepresentative quango system that is currently used to run the Province is unacceptable to anyone who claims to be a democrat.
Both the hon. Member for Wigan (Mr. Stott) and the Minister touched on some of the matters for debate tonight, and I am sure that other hon. Members representing Northern Ireland constituencies hope to catch the eye of the Chair to expound on their own concerns.
I begin by welcoming the change announced last autumn regarding compensation payments and the Government's view that any excess over the provision made should come from the contingency fund. That will at least prevent the Northern Ireland block grant from being dipped into too deeply. It is a welcome and necessary change.
The present system of compensation law in Northern Ireland has been in operation for a good many years, and I believe that a careful examination of that operation is long overdue. As the Minister will know, the compensation agency is conducting a questionnaire survey. That is all right as far as it goes, but I do not believe that it is an altogether sensible way to proceed. A far more detailed investigation is needed to try to sort out the difficulties that some people have encountered, and many others allege


that they have encountered, in the operation of compensation law in the case of both criminal and personal injuries.
Just before Christmas, the Coleraine bomb wrought tremendous destruction. The other day, I took a deputation of Coleraine business folk to see the Minister of State, the hon. Member for South Ribble (Mr. Atkins), and they floated some ideas for putting the heart back into the town. That cannot be done on the cheap; it must be done properly. I hope that the Government will make every effort to render all possible assistance, to ensure that the town has a good anchor in the centre and can resume its former health and prosperity. As the Minister knows, however, that health and prosperity has been much blighted by high unemployment rates.
The Minister will also be well aware that Coleraine is the key shopping anchor for the whole north coast, which has a tremendous tourist industry. I see little sense in trying to build up a tourist industry on the north coast without maintaining the shopping potential of Coleraine town. Walking through the streets of Coleraine on any dampish summer's day, it is possible to meet almost every citizen of Northern Ireland at some point; but one hardly ever sees Coleraine folk. They appear to be elsewhere.
The town is a magnet, attracting people from the entire Province and, indeed, from further afield. I have always been amazed by the impossibility of finding my constituents in Coleraine town centre when I have tried to canvass them there. However, I find nearly every other Northern Ireland Member's constituents—who, of course, are very welcome. The local traders have a slogan: "Use your brain, shop in Coleraine". That is a sound slogan, and one which most of the Province clearly accepts as a truthful indication of the potential of the town's shopping facilities. Ministers have received our deputations favourably so far; I hope that that favourable reception will be converted into favourable action in the coming weeks.
Another problem that troubles many of my constituents relates to the difficulties faced by agriculture. Let me give two examples. First, the potato growers are in a dreadful position. Potatoes cannot be stored and forgotten about for a year; once grown, they must be sold. The growers must get rid of them. They are a costly crop to produce and, far from declining, production costs are rising every year. In my opinion, someone who manages to grow a crop of potatoes to sale point for £1,000 per acre is doing very well; I suspect that the cost could be rather higher.
The Province is justly famous for its seed potatoes. I used to play a small part in growing them, because for many years my father grew the foundation seed stock for the whole of Northern Ireland. I witnessed the whole production process, from the point at which single tubers were planted to the point at which the Department of Agriculture, which was then in charge, sold the high-quality, top-class seed to farmers for commercial on-growing. It is not a cheap business: it is both costly and difficult, and requires a good deal of time and effort.
Many varieties of potato are grown for a specific overseas market. This year, farmers have encountered horrendous difficulties in trying to harvest their crop: some of my neighbours are still digging potatoes. Moreover, the sale of the potatoes has caused severe problems, because for some reason the export market—and there is only the export market—has disappeared. I am told that there are

a number of reasons for that, not least the fact that the countries that usually import potatoes seem to be running out of hard currency and are therefore not in a position to buy. The problem seems to have been compounded by the fact that some other EC countries are using EC money to fund the purchase of potatoes from their nation states. The result is that United Kingdom farmers, especially those in Northern Ireland, are left with a costly crop on their hands. Some of it is now being used for stock feed.
Any specialist grower—this is now very much a specialist market—can no longer survive a loss of that kind. In the past, it was possible to provide schemes to help out in one way or another. I hope that the Minister will take note of the problem, for it is very important. People will be looking for seed potatoes next year: the crop has served the Province well. It is a cash crop—a high-value crop. It is in severe difficulties this year, but those difficulties will probably not be repeated. When potatoes are transported to warmer countries and grown there, they pick up disease so fast that a fresh, healthy seed must be imported every year, or at least every other year. Such countries will be looking for potatoes next year and, if we do not grow them, the market will be gone for ever. That would have serious, long-term financial consequences.
My second agricultural example relates to the recent debate in the House about an order concerning hill livestock compensation payments in Great Britain. I listened carefully to the Minister who defended the decision to cut the payments. I must say that I admired his brass neck: he persisted in talking about the ewe premium. In my view, his remarks were completely out of order, because the order had nothing to do with the ewe premium; it concerned an entirely different matter. If the Minister looks at the legislation, he will appreciate that.
The ewe premium applies throughout the United Kingdom. As the Minister referred to it the other night, let me point out that the satisfactory increase in the premium —if it can be called satisfactory—arose because of the decline in the value of lambs, changes in the value of the green pound and the increase in the number of ecus taken into account from 5·5 to 7. The whole 7-ecu rate was recalculated, resulting in a final figure of 79p extra increase. The agriculture Minister seemed to consider that a wonderful act of generosity on his part, but it was not; it was simply the automatic outcome of his operation of the system. It is ridiculous that he should try to get away with such an argument. The farmers can count as well as he can; no one believes the case that he has made.
That order did not apply to Northern Ireland, but an exactly similar piece of legislation does. As far as I can discover, it is not subject to parliamentary scrutiny, which is a great pity. It means that we are deprived of another hour and a half debate on the subject. The Minister could not then have got away with talking about the ewe premium when he ought to have been talking about hill livestock compensatory allowances—HLCAs. We should have drawn the attention of the occupant of the Chair very swiftly to the fact that he was out of order. However, it is not possible to have such a debate. Therefore, we have to deal with that issue today.
The ewe premium is a one-off premium. It arises from a mechanical application of the present rules and is unlikely to be repeated. The HLCA cuts bear particularly harshly on hill farmers. The ewe premium applies to all the


farmers, whether they are hill or lowland farmers, but the cuts will have a particularly severe effect on hill farmers' incomes.
That leads me to discuss food production generally in the United Kingdom. The food that is produced in this country has to conform to standards that are laid down by the European Community and this House. The legislation that we are discussing today makes provision for quite a lot of money to be spent on enforcing those standards. I welcome the provision of that money. It means that the people of this country enjoy wholesome, high-quality food. The production of food to those standards, however, is very expensive. Therefore, we must look to the so-called level playing field that everyone demands for everything else.
We have no control over the production of food that is imported to this country. We can only control and police the production of food within the confines of the United Kingdom. If we have no control over the standards of food production elsewhere, it cannot be said that the costs of food production are comparable. Therefore, the production of food by United Kingdom farmers is not done on that so-called level playing field.
It is difficult to check food quality. If a machine does not work, it is easy enough to take it apart, find out what is wrong and correct the fault. However, we do not know what is sprayed on to crops or put into the ground elsewhere. We do not know, either, what is fed to livestock overseas. That factor of food production has been largely ignored. However, we ought to face up to it. If we do not, it might have severe consequences for the people of this country who eat imported food. It must also be borne in mind that food production cannot just be switched on and off. It takes a long time to build up the production of food. Once the market is lost, it is extremely difficult to regain it.
We have also been treated to the claim, regarding HLCAs, that the incomes of United Kingdom farmers are going up. Everyone admits that farmers' incomes increased from a very low base. I understand that the Northern Ireland figures for 1991–92 will not be published until the middle of March. However, farm incomes in Northern Ireland fell between 1988 and 1991 from £136·3 million to £125 million.
One can argue, of course, about the methodology. There was argument in the House a few days ago about that. If the same methodology is used, one can see whether incomes are rising or falling. The methodology is now so standardised that there is a fair indication of the way in which farm incomes are moving. Farm incomes over that period were down by over 8 per cent. Inflation during the same period was 20 per cent. Therefore, the fall in farm incomes was much greater than the cash sum to which I referred. The reduction has to include inflation.
Farm incomes include two elements. The first is the living expenses of farmers. They, like everyone else, have to eat. So do their families. Those expenses cannot be greatly reduced. Many farmers, especially hill farmers and small farmers, live frugally. The second element is the sum invested and there has been a considerable reduction in investment in farm machinery and equipment. That ought to worry any Minister with responsibility for farming. It certainly worries me.
If farmers enjoy fairly high income levels, they invest. Whenever their incomes fall, they cut their investment. They decide not to buy a new tractor, or other equipment. Although it may be desirable, they decide that they can carry on with the old piece of machinery for another year or two. They decide not to build new sheds or new silos. They let their machinery take its chance and stay outside under a sheet of plastic. Investment is the first to suffer. Over that same period, farm investment went down by 7·5 per cent. The most notable reduction was investment in tractors which, in money terms, fell from £14 million to £10·5 million. That says an awful lot about the state of farm incomes in Northern Ireland.
I hope that the Northern Ireland Minister will answer the question that the United Kingdom Minister failed to answer the other evening: how many farmers in Northern Ireland receive income support, or some other form of support from public funds, such as family credit? Many of them are in that position. It is not a happy position for proud and independent farmers to be in.
In 1988, the average value of Northern Ireland lambs was just over £40 a head. In 1991, it was down to £33. I believe that the 1992 figures will show the loss of a further £1. Last year, lambs were selling for about £32. That represents a drop of £8 in the value of each lamb between 1988 and 1992. However, inflation totalled 22 per cent. between 1988 and 1992. If those two factors are taken into account, instead of receiving £32 for each lamb, Northern Ireland farmers ought to have received £48 in order to stand still.

Mr. Beggs: Will my hon. Friend make it clear to the House that he is referring to the prices for finished fat lambs? Hill farmers rarely have the conditions in which to finish the lambs that they rear. Therefore, the price for their lambs ranges from between £16 and £22 per head when they sell them on for finishing.

Mr. Ross: Yes. My hon. Friend draws attention to a relevant point, which is that the price of hill farm lambs has dropped by considerably more than £8 per head. Therefore, those farmers suffer very much more from the drop in value.
We hear a lot of nonsense about extensification, environmentally friendly farming and all the rest of it. That is asking farmers to uninvent the wheel. It cannot be done. There is a body of knowledge within farming about how food can be produced efficiently, well and to high quality. One cannot wipe that knowledge out of people's minds. They will continue to use it. If the acreage that is farmed is restricted, farmers will intensify. One cannot get away from that.
There is a large problem of farm profits in the United Kingdom. I have something to say to the Minister and I am sorry that I did not get the chance to say it to a fuller House. Farmers' incomes may have been dropping; the price of lamb off the farm may have dropped by an horrendous amount in the past four or five years. But I do not think that many of our wives have noticed the price of lamb dropping at the butcher's shop.
I do not hear Sainsbury's and other grocery chains telling us that their profits have dropped. Indeed, I understand that this year they have all celebrated record profits. Perhaps the people of Britain had better think a little about that. It seems to me that the primary producers have contributed considerably to those profits. Unless a


sensible price which reflects the costs of production is paid for not only lamb but beef and many other products which come from the farms of the United Kingdom, we shall go into a steady downward spiral.
We need a true level playing field, not one that is tilted against the farmer. In my experience, it was always tilted against us. We seem to be the only business which always buys retail and sells wholesale. I cannot think of any other business that does that.
There is also a problem of depopulation in the rural areas. I do not like that. I believe that more people should live in the country. But they need to be country people. My experience is that when folks move out of large towns into the country they have considerable difficulty in adjusting to country life. We must keep country people in rural areas and allow them by one means or another to earn their living there.
If we are to keep a viable rural population, if only to look after the countryside, the Government must realise that it will cost someone money and that that money will have to come through the Government. To some extent, the HLCA payment was intended to help people stay in the country and keep it neat and tidy. If the Government decide as a matter of policy that they will not maintain the type of countryside that we have at present in the United Kingdom, well and good. But let them tell us.
I have heard stories about the countryside going back to wilderness. It will not go back to wilderness. It will go back to what appears to be wilderness or a wilderness of sitka spruce. It might be a wilderness in which people pursue sporting activities such as shooting, hunting and the rest, which are popular with some folk. The countryside will be used for something, but it will not be used for food production unless farmers can obtain a reasonable return on the food that they produce.
I could continue at length, but I shall raise only two further small items. The Minister talked about flood defence. That is a matter which must be examined. I hope that whenever planning authorities consider a planning application for a house on a flood plain, they will point out to the individual who is building it that it is on a flood plain and that flood banks can be breached. I hope that a comprehensive look will be taken at how we could care for folk who live on flood plains. Such problems arise not only in Northern Ireland but throughout the United Kingdom.
Every time there is an horrendous wind or rain storm we are confronted with complaints from many parts of the United Kingdom and requests for help for flood victims. There is no help. It is not good enough for the Government to say that if something is insurable they will not cover it. In theory, houses and buildings on flood plains are insurable, but one need only try to insure a house on a flood plain to see how difficult it is. Something must be done on a nationwide scale, not least in Northern Ireland, to deal with that problem. Let the Minister bear that in mind when he talks about flood defence.
I have made points about the Local Enterprise Development Unit previously and I make no apology for doing so again. LEDU can handle the simple job. It can handle an application from a firm with all the i's dotted and the t's crossed. But there seems to be a big black hole in its ability to handle the inventor who walks through the door looking for help. Such people seem never to find anything that is useful to them. Will the Government please take a look at that aspect?
I believe that there are many inventions and good ideas floating around in Northern Ireland which, with a certain amount of help at the right time, could make a useful contribution to reducing unemployment and, in many cases, extending the engineering industry in Northern Ireland. We should try to provide such help. Some ideas will go wrong, but so what? A great deal of money is being lost anyway. I am not telling the Minister to throw public money away, but sometimes it is necessary to risk public money to obtain a good return. Over a period of years, a scheme could be worked out that would pay for itself and do much good for the whole Province.

Royal Assent

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Morris): I have to notify the House, in accordance with the Royal Assent Act 1967, that the Queen has signified her Royal Assent to the following Acts:

Consolidated Fund Act 1993
Damages (Scotland) 1993
Bankruptcy (Scotland) 1993
South Yorkshire Light Rail Transit Act 1993

Appropriation (Northern Ireland)

Question again proposed.

Mr. Peter Robinson: I take as my starting point the same point as that of the previous two speakers. The hon. Member for Londonderry, East (Mr. Ross) commented on the procedures of the debate. I took note of a comment made by an hon. Member who visited the Chamber and listened for a few moments to our debate. As he went out, he said, "This business should not be on the Floor of the House. It is county council stuff." Many of us would probably nod our heads to that remark.
However, those of us who do not have the opportunity to deal with the issues in other places must take the fullest opportunity in this place to do so. But I remind the Government that it is wholly inadequate to deal with such levels of expenditure in such a cursory way. As the hon. Member for Londonderry, East said, we are fortunate that today, unlike many other days on which we have approached appropriation account debates, we are left with much more time, so that more Members will be able to speak, and perhaps some of them will speak for longer.
My district council set its rate in the past few weeks, as did every district council in Northern Ireland. Our expenditure is about £4 million to £5 million. We could have discussed it for days and tabled amendments on the items on which we spent it. Not so in the Chamber. We are limited by time, and we have no opportunity to do anything but vote against the amounts of money—something which people in Northern Ireland are not keen on voting against.
We could have better procedures in the House to deal in much greater depth with the expenditure of Northern Ireland Departments. Members of Parliament are denied scrutiny of those Departments under the existing system. I say that as a strong devolutionist. I see no inconsistency in believing in devolution for Northern Ireland and


wanting proper Select Committees in the House which reflect the business of the House at that given moment in time.
Having got that one out of the way, I should like to comment on the remarks of the Opposition spokesman, the hon. Member for Wigan (Mr. Stott). He rightly drew attention to the milestone that has been reached in the unemployment figures. It is a milestone which casts a dark shadow over the nation. That dark shadow is seen in Northern Ireland more than in any other part of the nation. Almost 110,000 people are unemployed; that is a long dole queue. I remind the Minister that we are talking not only about loss of resources in economic terms but about a serious social impact on the Province.
Each one of those cold statistics represents a family, and the hopes and aspirations of the people who surround the person who should have been the family breadwinner. It is a debilitating position for people to find themselves in, without the expectation or hope of finding employment in the foreseeable future. It is therefore incumbent upon the Government not to treat unemployment in Northern Ireland casually, and not to say, "Well, we cannot do too much about unemployment in Northern Ireland, especially with the terrorist backcloth." I accept immediately that terrorism presents great difficulties for those who want to induce investors into Northern Ireland and to encourage people to expand their businesses there—but that difficulty should call the Government to greater heights of energy and enthusiasm in attempting to do the job.
The hon. Member for Waveney (Mr. Porter) asked the Opposition where their policies were. I suppose that, if he were here now, he could ask me the same question. I trust that the Minister will consider a suggestion that I shall make about what can be done in Northern Ireland by elected representatives from Northern Ireland.
Before I make that suggestion, I shall place on record by way of a marker my pleasure that, in both Shorts and Harland and Wolff, which represent the major industries in my constituency, there is now more stability than there has been for a long time. That must be welcomed, although the fact that there have been some reductions in employment in both those firms over the year is not welcome. Many of us hope that, as time goes on and we come out of the long deep recession that we have suffered, those firms will be able to expand, and some of those jobs may come back.

Rev. Martin Smyth: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that not only Harland and Wolff but the whole British shipbuilding industry would benefit if our Government used the same yardstick for intervention money from Europe as other European countries do?

Mr. Robinson: Yes, indeed; there is no doubt about that. The point needs only to be stated to be accepted: the hon. Gentleman is absolutely correct. Harland and Wolff would benefit considerably, and the Government could do themselves and the nation a favour in environmental terms. We have all seen the dramatic impact of oil spillage, and there is real cause for the Government to impose much stricter regulations about the age and standard of ships allowed into our waters and the standard of ships built in our yards. A scrap-and-build policy at a lower level would help shipbuilding yards throughout the United Kingdom.

I trust that the Government will take that idea on board. It is certainly being urged by several trade unions involved in the shipbuilding industry.
The Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) (Northern Ireland) Order 1992 was the brainchild of the Department of Economic Development, which no doubt encouraged the Department of the Environment to say that local government could have a financial input into economic development. As a result, the Department introduced an enabling order to allow district councils to spend up to 2p in the pound in their rates for the purposes of economic development. Even before the provision was introduced, many local authorities were spending money on economic development under the old section 115, which allowed them to spend money for the good of the district council area or any part thereof.
The 1992 provision, however, clearly directs the attention of district councils to economic development, and encourages them to play a role. Many, if not most, councils in Northern Ireland are already involved in enterprise schemes that are either up and running or on the slip road ready to be put in place. It is good and proper for district councils to make their contribution to those, but I wonder whether the Government could consider a more structured approach.
The enabling power would allow local government in Northern Ireland to put economic development proposals together collectively, in groups of district councils. Under EC rules, such enterprises could enjoy considerable subvention. Would the Department be prepared to consider proposals for economic development from district councils in groups or as a whole? That would allow every pound spent by district councils to be quadrupled by European grants.
I know that the Department will be concerned that what district councils do should not duplicate what is being done by the Department of Economic Development or any of its agencies, but elected representatives in Northern Ireland have sufficient initiative to come up with schemes which would not duplicate activities and which would bring some local initiative into economic development.
Perhaps that would avoid some of the criticism levelled at the Government. They could rightly permit the money to be spent in that way, because any scheme would have to be approved by the Department of the Environment, the Department of Finance and Personnel and the Department of Economic Development before it could receive any money from Europe. I trust that the Minister's response will be positive. If it is, district councils will be encouraged to submit schemes to the Department.

Mr. Eddie McGrady: I entirely agree with the hon. Gentleman about the miscellaneous provisions order, concerning local government's ability to engage in economic development, but is he aware that it now transpires that the alleged independence given to local government will be monitored in detail by the Local Enterprise Development Unit, and local government can now spend the money only with LEDU's approval? The central agency is now taking ratepayers' money and dictating where it will go. Does the hon. Gentleman not agree that that is not a desirable development, and that it cuts straight across both the spirit of the legislation and the ratepayers' independence in spending their money as they wish, in so far as it is theirs?

Mr. Robinson: I am happy to agree with the hon. Gentleman. I was arguing for the independence of spending within district councils when his party was trying to rap some Unionist councils over the knuckles for spending money in the way that it did not like. I am glad that the hon. Gentleman has been converted and now thinks as I do on the subject. I trust that the Government, too, will think as we both now do about district councils' independence in spending their rateable product.

Mr. William O'Brien: What the hon. Gentleman is saying is important and significant in terms of local authorities' activities. It is pleasing to note that at least there is unity between the two parties on the issue. Has the hon. Gentleman read the Coopers and Lybrand report published in January? It contains a special feature on local economic development, and the report of a survey carried out within 24 district councils in Northern Ireland. The report is most encouraging about what is happening in district councils. The theme on which the hon. Gentleman has entered is constructive, and I suggest that all local authorities in Northern Ireland should have the Coopers and Lybrand report and build on what it says. Will the hon. Gentleman take note of that point, and has he any comment on the report?

Mr. Robinson: The House has heard that advertisement for Coopers and Lybrand. I have read parts of that report, which were contained in a study of economic development carried out by the Northern Ireland Centre in Europe. I commend it to the House.
The hon. Member for South Down (Mr. McGrady) should note that his council would be considered a neighbouring one to mine. I recognise that, when the European Community comes to consider economic development schemes, it will want those schemes to cover the entire Province, or groups of councils acting together. The Castlereagh council has already expressed an interest in such schemes, and if it was shared by Down council, I am sure that a group could be formed to put forward plans that might be attractive to the EC and the Department of Economic Development.
Vote 1 for the DOE—the department of everything, as it is called in Northern Ireland—which deals with roads, should be considered with vote 4, which deals with planning, because they are related.
In the past months, if not years, I am sure that every elected representative in Northern Ireland has received complaints about the state of some of our roads. Some of us feel slightly nauseated when Ministers responsible for that Department say, "Oh, but your roads are so much better than our own in Great Britain." I had thought that the general Tory philosophy might have led the Government to bring the standard of roads in Great Britain up to those of Northern Ireland, rather than bring ours down to their standard, but that seems to be the exercise upon which the Government are now engaged.
The DOE went through a lengthy process, which included much public consultation, that eventually resulted in the Belfast urban area plan 2001. I am saddened that it has failed to live up to the expectations in that plan, which represented a contract between the Government, who accepted the recommendations of the commissioners, and the community. Under that contract, the Government recognised that the plan represented the structure of planning for the city of Belfast and the Greater Belfast

area. They accepted that houses should be built here, factories there and so forth. It was understood that the Government would provide the infrastructure so that that plan could proceed.
The Government did zone land for housing, factories and offices, but they did not provide the suitable infrastructure. We are now faced with a ludicrous situation. People travelling from the constituency of the right hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Mr. Molyneaux), around the Carryduff area, come down the Saintfield road through the constituency of the right hon. Member for Strangford (Mr. Taylor). As any naturally sensible people would, they then try to get into east Belfast, but they find a massive road block along the way because the necessary infrastructure has not been put in place.
In key areas of the Belfast urban area plan, it was accepted that it was necessary to carry out road improvements, but while the Government have allowed the housing and factory development to go ahead, they have not provided the roads to allow people to move about. Because of the Government's failure to provide the necessary money, the planning department has said that, in 1993, it will have to consider stopping any further development.

Rev. Martin Smyth: The hon. Gentleman did a right turn into east Belfast, but does he recognise that we have faced a road planning problem for years? The centre of Belfast is in a mess because the roads in south Belfast have not been completed around Great Victoria street and Bankmore street. The problems caused by the lack of forward planning in the roads services department has been largely responsible for blight in the city and elsewhere.

Mr. Robinson: One of the great problems is the priority that the Government have placed on capital roads expenditure. The Government want to speed us on our way to Dublin and on the Newry bypass, phases one, two and all the way up to X. The Government have found plenty of money for that, but the road to Larne has not been improved, although that would help business men to get over to Scotland. None of the feeder roads into Belfast has been improved. The Government's priorities are completely wrong, because the vast majority of the business traffic would like to go through Larne rather than south. I suspect that the Government have political motives in mind when they provide money for the Newry bypass.
Those of us who represent the east Belfast/Castlereagh area received a communication from the Minister to say that the delayed start on a number of road schemes would be subject to further delay. The Belfast urban area plan set the future location of housing and factories between now and 2001, but the DOE has said simply that councils will not be given the money for road improvements. In other words, the planning services department will be unable to undertake development anywhere.
That, in effect, was the message in the letter from the divisional planning officer in Belfast. He made it clear that the southern approaches transportation strategy is the key element in deciding where future housing should be built. If the money for that strategy is not provided, it is clear that housing and factory development in the Castlereagh and outer east Belfast area will suffer.
I and many of my colleagues in local government are discontented with the system of appeals to the planning service department. I am not criticising the Planning Appeals Commission, which does a good job. It does not always come to the decision that I would wish, but no one could impugn its impartiality. Long delays occur before one is granted a planning hearing, and an even greater delay occurs before one is given the result, but that commission is doing a good job.
The intermediate stage in the planning process, however, simply does not work, and by and large it is surplus to requirements. The planning system in Northern Ireland was changed so that district councils simply had a consultative role, and the DOE was given the lead one. That Department makes a recommendation as to what should happen to any given planning application to a district council. The DOE condescended to allow councils to give their view on that recommendation, but it then adjudicates and decides whether planning applications should be approved or rejected.
The district councils are entitled, however, to send applications to the planning directorate. That directorate is the planning godhead—three people sit around in Stormont who to all intents and purposes are the creatures of the DOE. Therefore, little impartiality is exercised when it comes to judging whether the decision of local departmental officials is accurate.
If one sends an application to the directorate for referral and asks for a meeting, one is told, "No, we will not meet you. We will hear the views of our planning department and they will put your view to us. We will then make our decision." What kind of tribunal inquiry can claim to judge an application impartially when it listens to only one side of the story? If the directorate is to be a meaningful part of the planning process, it must be forced by the Government to hear both sides of the argument.
Little extra time would be involved if those at the directorate were asked to attend district council meetings or invited council representatives to put their case. If that happened, much less use would be made of the article 31 procedure. Under a concession given by the present Governor of Hong Kong when he was the Minister responsible for the DOE in Northern Ireland, if two thirds of a district council support an objection to an application, a public hearing on it is allowed.
A better interim appeals system might result in less use being made of the article 31 procedure, with a reduction in the work load of the planning appeals commission. I trust that the Minister will not allow the vested interests in his Department simply to advise against my suggestion, but will judge it on its merits.
We have in my constituency a retained fire station at Cregagh, known as the Castlereagh station. It has been there for a long time and provides, in effect, two fire stations for Castlereagh, east Belfast and surrounding areas. Its members have carried out their work valiantly over the years, and deserve much praise. One thinks immediately of the tragedy at Belvoir, where the men were first on the scene and did first-class work to minimise the impact of the damage that had been caused.
It is sad to relate that, on the morning after the Belvoir disaster, the firemen of the Castlereagh station returned to their jobs to be handed an envelope—they expected it to

contain thanks for the work they had done the previous day—explaining that it was proposed that their jobs should be done away with, that the station should be closed and that a new station should be established at Carryduff.
Those who know the basis on which firemen are retained will know that they are required to be within a certain distance of the fire station so that they can respond to a call within a given time. Moving the station from Castlereagh to Carryduff would not only reduce the fire cover from two to one pumps but would mean that the men employed at Castlereagh could no longer operate from the Carryduff station.
There are a number of essential buildings, including hospitals, in the surrounding area. At least, there are a number of hospitals there now, although one wonders whether, in view of the Government's policy, they will be there for long. There is clearly need for a quick response in fire cover terms. The Castlereagh station has always been a backup to Belfast and has a commendable record of covering what might be described as ordinary fires when the Belfast fire station has been covering emergency calls.
The area covered by the existing fire station is developing. The number of houses, businesses and facilities has substantially increased over the years, so a case could be made for more, rather than less, fire cover in the area. That is why those with knowledge of the area feel that the decision has been taken entirely on economic grounds rather than in terms of having the best fire cover for the area and essential services in it.
Education is close to the heart of the Minister who will reply to the debate. He has recently decided to take a magnifying glass to the education service and to review how it is operating, particularly in terms of the education and library boards. He will know that, when Ministers begin carrying out reviews, the people engaged in the services being reviewed become uneasy and uncertain. I urge caution on him as he carries out his review.
I hope that, in terms of the education and library boards' tasks, it will be a real review, and that he will not rule out the prospect that much of the work carried out by those boards could be done by elected representatives. In the past when Ministers have carried out reviews, reorganisations and reforms into every aspect of life in Northern Ireland, they have usually resulted in elected representatives being taken out of the process.
Health is a perfect example. The elected members were thrown off and put into second-rate health councils, where they had no real say or influence over major decisions. I hope that that is not what the Minister is contemplating, if he is contemplating anything. I trust that he will allow for the democratisation of the education and library boards, rather than the removal of the veneer of democracy that now exists.
Whether the Minister wants to review local councils, whether he has some idea up his sleeve about a Greater Ulster council for the whole of Northern Ireland, or whether he believes that peace will reign and we shall have stability in Northern Ireland, with the SDLP being less resistant to constructive proposals and talks resulting in devolved government, I do not know. Perhaps he will tell us. But we must have democratic control of education in Northern Ireland, that control going to the people there rather than to a Minister who, with the greatest respect, is not answerable directly to the people of Northern Ireland.
I say with the greatest respect to the Minister, because he is one Minister who is prepared to listen to people when constituents are taken to meet him. I am not buttering him up, although a group of people that I took to see him from the Bloomfield collegiate school will be happy if the capital expenditure programme which he will announce in the next few weeks includes provision for an extension to their school. They have a better case for such a development than any other school in Northern Ireland.
That case goes back many years. The school's population is growing, because it is a popular school—and, after all, the Government say that they want to encourage popular schools. It might be described as the people's, the parents' choice. Those responsible for the school decided some years ago that, because Government finance appeared to be restricted and the school needed an extension, they would do it themselves. They accepted that they could not provide the sort of high-flown extension that could be built at Lagan college with Government money, so they initiated an appeal to raise money for a somewhat lesser scheme.
They asked parents and former pupils to put their hands in their pockets, and the appeal for money proceeded. After a while, Government officials said, in effect, "We suggest that you stop what you are doing. Let us do the thing properly." So, halfway through the scheme, they called a halt to the appeal, took the advice of the officials and put in proposals to meet the Government's standard. They waited and waited, and they are still waiting—[Interruption.] There are many wise men in the east. The wisdom in that case will be judged by the generous response of the Minister to the appeal they made when they met him recently.
Another aspect of spending for which I will search when the Minister's much-awaited document is published is sporting provision. The Government have given up on sport in relation to district councils. They will meet existing commitments, but there appears to be nothing further in the pipeline. I suppose that we must wait for the lottery to begin and hope that some money from that will do the job that the Government should be doing for district councils.
We are in desperate need of a centre of excellence, a Northern Ireland sports centre, the case for which is irrefutable. Wales, Scotland and England have centres of excellence. England has several. Northern Ireland does not have one, yet, per head of population, Northern Ireland does much better at sport than other parts of the United Kingdom. A Government who believe in encouraging people to work on a cross-community basis should recognise the value of sport for cross-community contact.
However, I suspect that, in a few sports, the organisers discourage certain people in the community. That is reprehensible and, as someone interested in sport, I would encourage the Gaelic Athletic Association, who refuse admission to membership for certain people, particularly in the Crown services, to remove that obnoxious ban from their constitutions, and to come into the full world of sportsmen in the Province.
I hope that the Minister will look favourably on the sports centre committee's request for help with a Northern Ireland sports centre. We do not expect him to provide all the money. The sports centre committee has already set out proposals by means of which it will hope to get money from district councils, sponsors and the general public. It

already has a £1 million start from the Foundation for Sport and the Arts, and it is looking for, I think, a few million pounds from the Minister.
At least he should prime the pump and show that the Government are on board. That will free the money from the district councils, which are at present a little nervous of giving their money in advance of seeing the colour of the Government's. It is not the amount that the Government will give us that is important but the fact that they give us that pump-priming money to show that they are on board and will see us through the whole scheme.
The House has been very patient as I have gone over these detailed matters. It is unusual for the Chamber to be used to deal with the intricacies of a constituency's business as this debate allows, but I trust it will not be long before, in another part of the House, we can deal much more often with more of the intricacies of Northern Ireland business, and have Ministers more accountable for the spending of their Departments.

Mr. Eddie McGrady: This is the first time for a considerable period that we have had the opportunity to discuss the finances of Northern Ireland. It is most significant that the autumn financial statement for Northern Ireland was not made in this House. Despite many requests at business question time for information to be given to Northern Ireland hon. Members so that they could debate it in the House, it was refused. The only people who were informed of the consequences of the detail of the autumn statement were members of various political parties in Northern Ireland who were not necessarily elected either to councils or to this House. I therefore welcome this opportunity, the first in a long time, to look at the various aspects of financial administration.
It is also appropriate, as other hon. Members have said, that our first concern should be the rise in unemployment in Great Britain and in Northern Ireland. In saying that, I think that I detect a certain degree of complacency when Ministers talk about Northern Ireland. They say that the recession is not biting so deeply in Northern Ireland this time as it is in Great Britain, but the comparison depends where one starts from. The simple story is that the economy of Northern Ireland was already considerably depressed before the new depression took place in Great Britain, so to use that unfortunate expression in a negative sense, Great Britain is, in a sense, catching up with Northern Ireland. In my own constituency, and this applies in many areas of Northern Ireland, we have had endemic unemployment running between 18 and 21 per cent., not just this year or even for five years, but for 20 years.
There were questions today about industrial development and inward investment. Envy was expressed about hon. Members who were complaining about having lost substantial substructures of industries in the past couple of years. Many areas of Northern Ireland have never had that substructure of industry to lose. My constituency is unfortunately one of them. I shall deal with that later with some statistics, if I may.
Notwithstanding talk about industrial and commercial inward investment and job creation, most of the base industry of Northern Ireland is still agriculture. It is not just the base industry: it is the cement that keeps our communities alive in what is basically a rural community


of six counties. It is important that every Department of Government should recognise the basic, simple fact that a further degradation of the rural community would mean the total collapse of the agriculture industry with the rural communities and the ongoing consequential expenditure of a further drift to the towns and to the one or two cities that we have. It is a matter of good policy to sustain the agriculture industry, even at additional cost, because that will save money in the long run in terms of providing an infrastructure of every description to the different areas.
The hon. Member for East Derry (Mr. Ross) dealt in detail with some immediate problems facing the agriculture industry, which has hit just about its lowest ebb for many decades. He spoke about the potato industry. My constituency produces a lot of the seed potatoes to which he referred. The series of climatic conditions, the heavy rains in the autumn and early winter and the alternations between frost and rain, not only prevented the crop from being harvested but caused considerable rot to the seeds, which could not be lifted in time for storage. They also rotted in storage.
Compounding that, as the hon. Member said, was the export market. It is all export, but in Portugal and Cyprus that market has totally collapsed. In very early December I asked the Minister responsible—who lives or resides, or whatever he does, in another place—to provide a stock feed scheme to save the potato industry. That was rejected out of hand. I must put on the record that it was rejected out of hand on the advice of some of the farming unions; they are now scrambling for aid for the same industry, but they said at the time that no special treatment should be given to the potato industry. Now that the extent of the calamity is known, that is obviously not the way to go forward.
Allied to that was the debate that we had on Tuesday about the hill livestock compensatory allowance and all that that involves. When we talk about farming, as the hon. Member for East Derry did at some length— [Interruptioni]—well, I prefer to call it Derry.

Rev. William McCrea: It is Londonderry.

Mr. McGrady: I am addressed in this House as the Member for Down, South when it is recorded as South Down, so what is in a name?
The Ministry issued statistics of average incomes for the hill sheep farms. We are talking not about big farmers like those of south east England, but about those earning an average of £3,761 per annum according to the Department of Agriculture. On that figure, they are basically on income support. They are the type of person we want to keep in business. Allied to that was the introduction of the beef quotas last year for suckler cow herds and the iniquitous and anomalous continuation of the milk quotas. All those have militated against the viability of a basic industry, and the Department of Agriculture must have in mind to carry out an urgent, comprehensive review to aid that industry, or at least to put it into profitability so that it can aid itself. In my constituency, in particular, hill farming is allied with the fishing industry; the introduction in that industry of quotas and limited fishing time at sea by a so-called conservation Act means that farmers cannot even add to their income from the harvest of the sea. So here we have

an industry which needs urgent and radical attention. I hope that the Minister will convey that to his colleagues and to the Department and have something done about it.
The next block of votes refers to economic development. I ask the Minister to draw the attention of his ministerial colleagues to the concern expressed in many quarters about the reappraisal of responsibilities between the Department of Economic Development, the Industrial Development Board and the Local Enterprise Development Unit. I suspect that we are getting it all wrong. Even the easiest way of preparing an organisational chart setting out where the responsibilities of the various organisations and the Department lie is a considerable one. The Industrial Development Board deals exclusively with inward investment from throughout the world into Northern Ireland while LEDU, suitably augmented and professionalised, deals with indigenous or internal job creation, preservation and enhancement. There is the basis for an easy and sensible demarcation which would stop the confusion that is about to enter the system.
I have an interest in trying to promote a Down-Chicago link. That involves, obviously, a linkage between Down and north America. I am told that I and the company involved must approach the LEDU office at Newry. That office is as relevant to Chicago as I am to the moon, though the lunatic connection might belie that. I maintain that that office has no relevance. The Department of Economic Development must undertake a rational and practical re-examination of the system. Perhaps a wee bit of empire building is going on which should be brought to book on the basis of practicality and good common sense.
I draw the Minister's attention again to the inequality of the distribution of inward investment in Northern Ireland. Parliamentary answers over the past three years show that there have been 875 first-time visits in relation to would-be industrial investment into Northern Ireland. There were 282 in 1989–90, 255 in 1990–91 and 338 in 1991–92. In each of those three years there were three, two and five visits to South Down respectively. In other words, an area only 20 miles from the Belfast docks received only 10 visitations out of 875. That is less than 1 per cent. The pattern was the same in the past. A great injustice continues to be perpetrated in the sharing out of industrial development. I do not accept that industrialists cannot be encouraged more positively to areas such as South Down. Areas which have been denied industrial development could be given more grant aid than areas which have been industrialised. In other words, there could be an element of zoning. Economic incentives could redirect industrialists.
We all know about the much-vaunted introduction of fibre optics to rural areas of Northern Ireland, including South Down. I am disappointed that the Government have not made a greater effort to create back-office transfer jobs not only from the south of England, where the process has taken place, but from the north American continent and Europe. There is the example of Castletown in County Kerry. That small village is responsible for the entire administration of an American insurance company. It is a most cost-effective arrangement. That is a good example of the opportunity for job creation in Northern Ireland.
How can we bring industrialists to an area which does not have an industrial site? I have been told, "Don't worry about that: if an industrialist wants to set up in your area, he can have a purpose-built factory in six to eight months; that is how good we are." The trouble is that there would


be nowhere for the industrialist to build his factory. Not one industrial site is available in the constituency. Efforts have been made for the past two years to get one at Downpatrick, but it has not been secured. If an industrialist comes along, are we to tell him that he must wait two years for the legal implications to be worked out? The position at Kilkeel is exactly the same, as it is at Warrenpoint. No industrialist will tolerate a six to eight month start-up date because of the lack of industrial site provision. I am talking not about large land banks but about ordinary one-off sites which can be used as we go along. It is an issue which should be given immediate and practical attention. It has been said that the "department of everything" gives us the opportunity to discuss everything.

Mr. William Ross: The hon. Gentleman says that there has been a two-year search for an industrial site:in his constituency. Was land not identified, or was it found and planning problems ensued of the kind experienced at Limavady?

Mr. McGrady: I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving me an opportunity to emphasise the point once again. We did not even get to the stage of having a squabble with the planning authorities. We were bogged down with administrative nonsense. There was a great juggling act with figures and costs. In other words, no one was prepared to make a decision of the kind that would be made in business—in other words, to clinch a deal or to decide to move on to another site. The approach lacked precision.
Reference has been made to coastal flood protection, and I am concerned about coastal erosion. The east coast of Northern Ireland, particularly County Down as well as South Down, is softer than the North Antrim end. The men of Antrim are hard and so are the cliffs, but dangerous erosion is taking place along the south coast, especially in the South Down area, because of the soft nature of the coastal area. I am aware that it would be an extremely expensive operation to retain all that ground, but there must be a policy to protect it. If vital areas are not protected, they will disappear and communications will suffer. God knows, there are few enough roads at present— we do not want them to disappear into the sea.
An excellent statement was made on 4 February in London by one of the Minister's colleagues about a national roads investment plan which would involve the expenditure of £2,092 million, of which £1,148 million would be directed to major road works. I received a letter dated 3 February—almost the same date—from the Department of the Environment of Northern Ireland referring to the major roads programme for 1993–98 and setting out figures which could be described only as bizarre. I shall not ask the Minister to explain them because that would be unfair. The programme runs annually from 1993–94 to 1997–98 as follows:£7·4 million, £7·2 million—that seems consistent—£3·7 million—there is now a jump—£9·9 million and then an escalation to £17·7 million. I do not believe that statement for one moment. It seems to present the never-never land of public finance.
An undertaking has been given by the Department and by successive Ministers to remedy a bottleneck at Downpatrick. It would be a relatively small scheme involving expenditure of £1·2 million. Downpatrick has

been crippled because nothing has been done to the roads in the area for the past 13 years. In that period, there has not been £1 of capital expenditure on a major roads programme in the area. Admittedly, part of South Down happens to cross the dual carriageway somewhere around Banbridge; I know Banbridge, and that is attributed to South Down, but in fact it is a Newry-Belfast route and has nothing to do with South Down per se.
This has been a matter of paralysis by analysis, and it has been going on for some 26 years. This is the history. In June 1990, it was on, and the finance was available in April 1991. It was then off in December 1991, on again in January 1992 and off again during 1992. It was on again for October 1992, and now it is to be five years hence. That is the most appalling record. The people in that street have been completely shattered by the news that it has been postponed for another five years. They have been paralysed by this constant shilly-shallying. Their businesses have been run down, and allied to that has been the fiasco of the closing of the next street. The town of Downpatrick has been shattered by it.
When one considers that the same Department has a regeneration programme for the town, one wonders whether the left hand knows what the right hand is doing. Very nice environmental lamps, arches and paving stones are being put in, but the traffic cannot get through the town. The environmental impact study was alleged to be the cause. This was because the traffic was coming in through one particular funnel. Surely the environmental pollution would be halved if half the traffic were directed elsewhere, as would the noise pollution, thus curing the problem.
I come now to the question of water privatization—

Mr. William Ross: Before the hon. Gentleman leaves roads, did he notice in the letter that he received, which I assume is the same as the letter that the rest of us received, the very large number of bridge-strengthening programmes resulting purely and simply from European Community interference in how we spend our money in the United Kingdom? Some of that work may be very necessary, but quite a lot of the bridges would have been all right for a few years, and we would have been better off with a bypass than with a strengthened bridge.

Mr. McGrady: I thank the hon. Gentleman for that information, of which I was not aware. I am sure that he is right. Let us take that argument one step further. Let us take a couple of million pounds out of the maintenance budget for some of those schemes, which would contribute enormously to the potential economic development of certain areas.
I shall speak only very briefly about water privatisation because it is not a vital part of finance; I wish just to put down a marker. The people of Northern Ireland, all the Northern Ireland Members, I venture to say, and all the councils of Northern Ireland are totally and absolutely opposed to the proposed legislation, not only because we believe that water, particularly in Ireland, is a God-given right and should not be in private ownership, but should be in community—that is, Government—ownership, but also because we know full well that, as in the case of electricity, prices would escalate on the basis of profit motivation. Furthermore, we oppose water privatisation because of the need to protect our environment. Some of our most beautiful areas are the catchment areas for the


reservoirs and treatment plants. As a Northern Irishman, I would be terrified if those lovely areas were handed over to private ownership by what could be a French or other foreign company. I am sure that the legislation will be resisted at every possible opportunity and in every way by the people of Northern Ireland and their representatives.
Regarding housing, the Minister will need to explain why there is a philosophical departure from providing housing for those in need to providing it for those who do not seem to be in the same degree of need. I refer to the strangulation of the housing sector budget by the absence of any increase for the next three years. As I understand it, a shortfall of £73 million in real terms is expected. The co-ownership body and the housing associations have had increased funds allocated to them, in line with the Government's dogmatic policy regarding home ownership. The effect of this is that those in need, on whom public money should be spent, are not getting the funding that would meet their housing needs.
In November 1992, out of 22,847 homes, 9,945 were classified as in urgent need of repair. Apart from that, from 1991 to 1993 the housing sector waiting lists increased by 1,029, to 21,851. It is very important that money be spent on public authority housing and concentrated on the areas of greatest need. The same thing happened to the housing associations before Christmas. Again it went, not on the areas of greatest need, but on the areas where home ownership was the target of the bodies' activities. As I have said, if public money is spent, it should be spent for the benefit of those people who cannot ever, in many cases, aspire to owning their own homes, but who deserve a better standard of accommodation.
I refer finally to health and social services and the chicanery that is going on in all the various boards at the moment. I have the problem of dealing with two boards —the Eastern health and social services board and the Southern health and social services board. We are supposed to be having a review of medicine, care in the community and preventive medicine on the basis of what is good for the patient. It appears to me that it is a purely economic and financial reappraisal.
Homes have been closed without ministerial consent; the Minister does not even know that they have been closed. There is a drive to close down all statutory provision. That is totally contrary to the patients charter, which states specifically that there should be a choice between statutory and private accommodation.
However, the big problem is coming with the closure of the hospitals, which will affect very many of us. Hon. Members who spoke earlier referred to their particular areas. The House will be relieved to know that I do not intend to go into detail about the Downpatrick group of hospitals, because I have dealt with that at some length before. I simply say that in the constituency of South Down, which covers some 780 square miles, three hospitals are threatened with closure. None will be left. Acute services have been transferred to the city centre, which is a total bottleneck no matter which way one looks at it. It is a bottleneck in terms of traffic, patient waiting lists and everything else one can think of.
If clinical effectiveness and cost effectiveness, together with accessibility for patients, are the criteria on which the Government are making decisions, the boards are going

entirely the wrong way about it and defying the basic concepts and tenets of the patients charter. It is time that the Department woke up to the fact that it is misdirecting the boards in terms of its own policy.
On maternity provision, for instance, the Department has issued an edict stating that a hospital cannot have an effective maternity unit unless it has a throughput—that is what they call it, as though they were talking about cattle —of 2,000 births per annum. When I wrote to the Royal College of Gynaecologists and Obstetricians, I was told that that was not the case and that smaller units with under 1,000 births are quite acceptable if there is good communication and good teamwork by consultants, anaesthetists, midwives and gynaecologists. That is what we have; 31 per cent. of all births in Northern Ireland take place in small units, and we have achieved much greater birth safety than we have had for centuries. Now we may be destroying something good for something unnecessary which has to be proved, quite apart from the question of accessibility.
The Department should examine the criteria which have been used by the boards as an excuse for their proposals which in reality are a cost-cutting exercise. They have nothing to do with patient care or community care. It is a bookkeeping, budgetary exercise. The boards should adopt the patients charter with regard to cost effectiveness, allied to patient acceptability, and reconsider many of the damaging consultative documents which have been so depressing for our constituents and so demoralising for hospital staff from consultants down.

Rev. Martin Smyth: Does the hon. Gentleman know that, when the Select Committee on Health recommended that the Department should withdraw its circular, it refused to do so? Now there is to be a re-examination. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that that is more likely to be an attempt to cover the Department's own tracks than to meet the needs of the people because on maternity provision the Department has been hoist with its own petard?

Mr. McGrady: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention, and I agree with him totally. It is a paper exercise which has nothing to do with patient care. The Department should reconsider its proposals and bear in mind the comments of the Select Committee on Health.
I wish to refer to three areas where there is a lack of health provision. The opportunities for breast screening in the Southern board area are inadequate. Finance should be made available immediately to provide screening facilities. A study has been undertaken on cystic fibrosis. In a letter dated 23 November 1992 the Minister said that the study had been completed. I hope that its findings will be put into force so that cystic fibrosis sufferers and their carers may get all the help that they need. The provision of help should not be delayed by administrative hang-ups.
I also want to draw the Minister's attention to the comments of the Chest, Heart and Stroke Association, which has stated that 1,200 cardiac bypass operations are needed in Northern Ireland each year. The chief medical officer has recommended that only 800 operations–75 per cent.—should take place. Will the responsible Minister undertake that there will be a review of the provision for cardiac surgery? We have spoken about that before. The position has improved, but not sufficiently to cope with the real need in the community.
I thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for the opportunity to put points to the Minister and his colleagues. There are conflicting demands on finance in each Department, but a reappraisal of some of the points mentioned in the debate might bear more fruit than the current programmes proposed by various Departments.

Rev. William McCrea: Sometimes when we debate Northern Ireland affairs, I note by their absence the keen interest of right hon. and hon Members on the Government and Opposition Benches. However, when the House is dealing with Northern Ireland questions—in other words, at prime television, photo-call time—Northern Ireland Members find it difficult to be called. At most, Northern Ireland Members will get one question, and the rest of the time will be allotted to Tory or Labour Members who are keenly interested at that time. However, they have little to offer in this debate. Yet representatives of Her Majesty's Government will seek public support in the local government elections in a few months' time.

Mr. Beggs: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that it is frustrating for hon. Members who regularly submit questions to discover that they do not come out of the ballot or the tombola, or that somehow the computer tends to overlook them? We are not unaware of the number of planted questions which are arranged to ensure that Ministers have an opportunity almost to provide press releases.
Does the hon. Gentleman agree that it would be helpful if the Opposition and the Government reached an agreement to restrict the number of questions submitted by their Members for Northern Ireland Question Time? The same should apply to Scottish and Welsh questions. Surely on those occasions, Members from the relevant regions should have more opportunity to raise issues.

Rev. William McCrea: I accept that intervention wholeheartedly. There must have been a planted question today, because an hon. Member, in asking his question, was able to mention a percentage, 38 per cent., instantaneously as if he had a calculator. Much research was needed to come up quickly with the exact figure. It sounded as if that was a planted question.
I do not object to the release of information which is of value to Northern Ireland Members. In recent times, some Members from Northern Ireland have been so disgusted about the listed questions, and the Members who have been called, that they no longer submit questions because they think that it is useless to do so. That is a sad commentary.
Many matters are in the hearts of Members from Northern Ireland. Today's debate is taking place under the shadow of disgraceful unemployment figures. We cannot specifically blame the Ministers on the Front Bench, because Northern Ireland, and especially my constituency, has a long history of unemployment. Even though we have appealed continually to successive Governments to intervene, they have not reduced basic unemployment.
We should remember that the figures are not just statistics. As my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson) said, behind each of the unemployed there is hardship. We are talking about breadwinners who cannot provide for their families. Many of them want to do so. I acknowledge that some are happy to leave it to

society to provide for them, but the vast majority of the unemployed earnestly wish to make a contribution to the community. They should be enabled to make that contributions. We are certainly enduring the ravages of the present recession, but my constituency has for many years suffered deplorable unemployment, which I condemn. The Government could do more.
When the hon. Member for South Down (Mr. McGrady) was on his feet I was tempted to call him the hon. Member for Ballynahinch, as he did not have the courtesy to give the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Londonderry, East (Mr. Ross) its proper name. Regardless of what the hon. Member for South Down thinks, Londonderry, East is the proper name of my hon. Friend's constituency. Surely the hon. Gentleman ought to be courteous enough to refer properly to the constituency of a fellow Northern Ireland Member, especially when the hon. Gentleman is taking part in a debate in London. He seems to think that mention of the word "London" as part of the name of Londonderry might burn his tongue. My hon. Friend and his constituents are entitled to some courtesy. It is obvious from voting figures that the vast majority of the people in that constituency want it to be called Londonderry, East. Nobody is entitled to deprive them of that right.
It is quite right that the hon. Member for South Down should be concerned about the level of unemployment in his constituency. I can assure him that Mid-Ulster suffers similarly. It seems that industrialists who are attracted to the Province are directed to certain areas, of which Mid-Ulster is not one. The west of the Province must be given its fair share, as must the constituency of the hon. Member for South Down.
No end of industrialists are paraded round the streets of Londonderry. They may get as far as Strabane, but they are not allowed to come over the bridge to see the greener grass of Mid-Ulster. I can assure the hon. Member for South Down that the grass of Mid-Ulster is indeed green. The Lord made it that way. If the hon. Gentleman knew anything about institutions to which some of us belong, he would realise that, in that context, green is a very important colour. However, that is a matter for another occasion.
Mid-Ulster has much to offer. It has able-bodied and highly skilled men and women, who are ready and willing
to work. The industrialists who come to the Province should be encouraged to have a look at Mid-Ulster. They would be given a royal welcome. The councils and everyone else concerned would do everything possible to facilitate them. Omagh, which is at the heart of my constituency, has not only endured the blight of recession but also suffered the reorganisation—called rationalisation—of the Housing Executive, the electricity service, mental health services and maternity services. In these fields, there is a continuous jobs drain.
The regional office of the Housing Executive was transferred from Omagh to Londonderry, and there has been a great decline in the number of staff in the Tyrone and Fermanagh hospital, the main part of which is now lying vacant. It is a beautiful hospital with a tremendous history, and it should be ringing with the voices and the footsteps of patients and workers. Northern Ireland Electricity, too, is removing its area office from Omagh, and the Tyrone county hospital has been told that it must close down its maternity service.
These things cannot be blamed on the recession. We are confronted with what is called a rationalisation programme. The Government must do more to encourage the retention of main services in the west of the Province and in other areas of high unemployment, such as my own. The rate of unemployment in Cookstown is the second highest in the United Kingdom, yet one seldom hears hon. Members from this side of the water express concern about it. In this context, one often hears Strabane mentioned. Strabane does indeed have the highest rate of unemployment, but Cookstown has the second highest. It is right that the situation in Strabane should be highlighted, but other areas with similar problems should be given some recognition. This is a matter that ought to exercise the minds of all right hon. and hon. Members.
Unemployment is an awful scourge. It is a problem that must be tackled root and branch. It will continue to blight the Government unless they do something about it. I appreciate all the schemes that the Prime Minister mentioned at Question Time today, and all the action that various Ministers have taken, but we still have unemployment on a massive scale—a scale unknown to the vast majority of constituencies in the United Kingdom. I appeal for urgent action to help the constituency of Mid-Ulster.
The constituency that I have the honour to represent is in a state of shock. It does not know what the future holds. Maternity services are of vital importance. I make no apology for raising this matter yet again. Hon. Members —even Members from Northern Ireland constituencies —have fallen into the trap of pitting constituency against constituency. It may have been thought that, if the people of Omagh were to lose their maternity services, and the people of Enniskillen were to keep theirs, the matter would stop there—that it would be Mid-Ulster versus Fermanagh and South Tyrone.
How foolish. Once the ball starts rolling, it is very difficult to stop. Hon. Members who were not interested in the removal of maternity services from Omagh now realise that other health boards are re-examining provision in their areas. At a meeting with the board in the northern area, I was told that events in the western area were being watched carefully and that the authorities in the north area would learn from what was happening in the west.
Members of Parliament from all parts of Northern Ireland are seeing the disgraceful destruction of services that have been shown to be excellent and to have the absolute confidence of the community. Who is to cast such services aside so carelessly? Will the people concerned be acting on behalf of the community? Will they be the ones using the services? No. I should like to know how many of those who took the decision on the maternity service in Omagh had families actually using it, and how much they knew about it.
In reality, the service has been cast aside carelessly by a few non-elected Government yes men and women, with little knowledge of the local services, the excellence of which is acknowledged by the local community. The Western health and social services board has decided to close a viable and excellent community maternity unit at the Tyrone county hospital, stating:
A larger unit made available in a neighbouring county is more desirable and would improve the quality of maternity services.

The professional consultant medical staff of the county, supported by the Omagh and Strabane general practitioners, challenge such a contention and state:
There is no evidence that rationalisation to any one site in the Omagh Fermanagh district would enhance the quality of service.
Rather, they contend:
Such a decision will lead to a reduction in quality due to the markedly reduced accessibility to services for approximately 55,000 people.
My constituents are furious. We must deal with the heart of the problem at the scheduled meeting with the Prime Minister. Instead of one board waiting to see what the other does in response to the consultative paper, and the piecemeal closing of one unit here to satisfy another there, there should be a review of maternity services in the Province. The way in which that has been done by Government hatchetmen is despicable and disgraceful, and cannot be accepted in a system with any semblance of democracy. I condemn it. The area health council voted 17 to four, with one abstention, in favour of the retention of the maternity units in the Tyrone county and Erne hospitals.
Do patient choice and the patients charter mean anything? In reality, patients have no choice. The board decides. The Prime Minister may say, through the patients charter, that there must be patient choice, but the board rubbishes that in a few seconds.
The Select Committee on Health made a recommendation which, in two seconds, was cast into the bin by the board and its officers, never to be seen again. That is no way in which to deal with an honourable Committee of this House. There should have been due recognition of the recommendation of the House, and the issue is not finished yet. It will not go away until justice is done.
I am delighted to report that, despite the board's attempt to put a blight on the Tyrone county hospital, births in the maternity unit have remained at their previous high number. When a question mark is put over a hospital, people often vote with their feet, leading to a closure, but here the opposite has happened. A proper, earnest, genuine review is needed. Without it, justice will neither be done nor be seen to be done.
We must end the situation whereby the people of Northern Ireland are herded like sheep into a corner. There must be some democracy. It is about time that people were listened to through their democratically elected representatives. Church leaders, politicians from all political parties, general practitioners and consultants have spoken with one unanimous voice, yet the Government close their ears to what the people have to say.
Within two weeks of the Minister taking office, he gave his consent to that closure. Before the Minister had a full understanding of his job, and without researching the issues properly, he made a decision which affected the future and the lives of the children in my constituency.
What will be the future for those children? I draw to the attention of the House the important case of a child born prematurely at the Tyrone county hospital on 10 December 1992, who was subsequently transferred as an emergency case on the same day to the special care baby unit at Altnagelvin hospital in Londonderry. That child was returned to the maternity unit of the Tyrone county hospital on 18 December 1992.
I have in my possession the instructions given to the ambulance service on the treatment of infants. They say:


The premature baby and the low-weight child are among the top priority cases in the ambulance service. They are very susceptible to infection and heat loss.
But that child was returned to the Tyrone county hospital by voluntary care services. That is exactly what will happen when the service is taken away from Omagh. New-born babies, some of whom will be underweight, emergency transfers, will be carried in the back of a car.
On both transfers, the nurse accompanied the child. The Western health and social services board operates the voluntary car service on a large scale. In other words, a payment is made per mile covered by the service. It seems that the service will replace the ambulance service where an accident or emergency ambulance is not required.
I should be obliged if the Minister could tell us what consideration has been given to the condition of the patient. What about the risk of cross-infection between patients in the same vehicle? What about the distance of travel and the social and domestic needs of the patient? I have written to the Minister asking him such questions, and I draw them to the attention of the House, because there is deep concern at the way in which the Western health and services board is treating the mothers and babies in my constituency.
I had a visit from a doctor concerning a referral to a consultant. He gave me the documentation on the case, which I shall be taking further. On 11 February 1991, the doctor referred a patient to a consultant for an immediate examination. On 9 December 1992, nearly two years later, a letter arrived stating:
I am afraid that, as a result of extreme pressure from management regarding waiting list initiatives and the patients charter I am not in a position to see this particular patient any sooner as this would have a direct adverse effect on the overall outpatient waiting time.
Two years later, after the doctor had written again to ask for an appointment, the consultant wrote to say that he could not see the patient because of the extreme pressure from management as a result of the waiting list initiative and the patients charter. Instead of the patients charter working for the patient, it has worked against him. The doctor then had to advise the patient to pay for the treatment he needed, and the consultant was able to see that patient within a few days.
I also have the letters concerning that case. Those who pay for it get immediate attention; those who do not pay are put on a waiting list. Two years later, the patient received a letter saying that the consultant still could not see him, because of the waiting list initiative and the patients charter. It is a serious matter, and the medical fraternity are very angry that the patients charter is not working for the patient. This is a slight not on the consultant, but on the current system, which is totally unacceptable. The health service in my constituency needs urgent help.
Roads are another big problem. Maternity services are being taken away, sending mothers miles away along country roads. In the winter, those roads are neither gritted nor salted. We have the largest network of country roads in the Province, yet we cannot get road maintenance work done.
The Northern Ireland Audit Office at the Department of the Environment produced a report on the structure and maintenance of roads. I have referred to it before, and I do so again. It states that the maintenance backlog between 1985 and 1989 in the Omagh division increased from £22·45 million to £25·33 million. Instead of the

maintenance of roads improving over the years, it has deteriorated. It is the only part of the Province where that has happened.
The report provides information on all the divisions from 1985 to 1989. The expenditure on roads is deplorable. It seems that there is more urgency to build the bypass at Newry than to build new roads throughout my constituency. It seems that there is plenty of money for the Dublin road but none for roads in Ulster.
My constituents are no longer willing to accept this. They have been treated as second-class citizens or worse, particularly in Mid-Ulster. We have made demands in the past, but now we shall make more vigorous demands for more than our fair share, so that the backlog is cleared. We have been treated in a disgraceful fashion, and we have the right to the money for the maintenance of our roads.
We have no major road works, yet the Minister tells us that the Omagh bypass will be coming up in 1995–96. We need a bypass in Cookstown as the lack of one is stifling the economy and industrial development. The community is crying out for it. We need a bypass in Newtonstewart and in Magherafelt. How can we be expected to meet the challenge of Europe when the money is not made available to us
My hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, East suggested that there were those across the water here who said that more money was spent on roads in Northern Ireland than in the rest of the United Kingdom. Interestingly enough, the booklet from the Northern Ireland Audit Office is a mine of information. It states:
On all roads the expenditure in England and Wales was £3,181 per mile, compared with £1,961 in Northern Ireland.
It is always being thrown in our teeth that far more money is being spent in Northern Ireland, but it is not true.
I would not suggest that the Audit Office of the Department of the Environment is putting out deceptive documents, and its document suggests that expenditure in England and Wales was £3,181 per mile, compared with £1,961 in Northern Ireland. We urgently need road repairs and bypass roads if we are to face the challenge of the European market.
We have been promised that the open market in Europe will bring prosperity, that everything in the garden will be rosy, and that it will be a paradise for all. Instead, we are still treated as backwoodsmen because we come from a part of the United Kingdom with a large network of roads but no money to deal with it. I appeal to the Minister to take action.
Agriculture is also crying out for help. Today, the hon. Member for Eltham (Mr. Bottomley), a former Minister at the Northern Ireland Office, tabled the following question:
To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will estimate the number of full and part-time farmers.
It is a very good question. If we leave it for a year, we will find out how many farmers there will be. If no help is given to the potato farmers and if there is to be a reduction in the headage payment, certainly in my constituency there will be far fewer full-time and part-time farmers. The farming industry in the Province is in dire need of financial help—and we have been promised cuts. All is not well in my constituency and the rest of the Province.
Can the Minister inform the House about the present position of the lignite development? Will it help our energy industry? What is the up-to-date decision? Is it going


ahead, or does it cut across other Government policies? Many people in the Province are anxious that we take the industry seriously as it may help us face some of our costs.
My constituents are in a tragic situation. We have the second highest unemployment figure in the whole United Kingdom. As stated in the report, our roads are in the most deteriorated state ever. I will quote the report once again:
A high percentage of the roads in Northern Ireland were coming into the last quarter of their lives. Over the next few years rapid deterioration would become increasingly evident and in the Omagh division, serious deterioration has occurred.
That is the reality for my constituency. My constituents face high unemployment, a worse road network, hospital services being removed. What hope does the House give them? I suggest that the Government have urgently to help those people who are in vital need.

Mr. David Trimble: I shall begin in the same way as some other hon. Gentlemen, by commenting on the structure of the debate and the way in which it has been conducted. This is one of the few occasions during the year on which we can raise matters of constituency concern. Because of the almost total absence of any meaningful form of local government in Northern Ireland, as an hon. Gentleman said in response to a question from another hon. Member who popped into the Chamber for a few moments, they are county council matters which ought not to be considered on the Floor of the House. I agree with that. Such matters should be dealt with in the equivalent of county councils in Northern Ireland.
In the absence of much-needed local government reform in Northern Ireland, hon. Members should look again at the way in which we conduct the debate. When we get an appropriation order for legislation, we do not have the same diffuse, wide-ranging debates as we have today. An attempt is made to structure them, and perhaps that approach could be extended. The hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson) mentioned the possibility of creating a Northern Ireland Select Committee. One ought to exist, because it is anomalous that the Northern Ireland Office is the only Department of state in respect of which there is no Select Committee; that situation should not continue much longer. That Department, more than any other, needs a Select Committee because of the absence of proper accountability in respect of Northern Ireland matters. I fully endorse the comments of the hon. Member for Belfast, East and was glad to hear them.
The Northern Ireland Committee, which is the equivalent of the Welsh Grand Committee and Scottish Grand Committee, might also be used for that purpose. Hon. Members representing Northern Ireland constituencies would welcome more structured and better-focused debates. Looking around the Chamber one sees the consequences of this consolation debate. We complain about the inadequate way in which Northern Ireland business is handled in the House, so the Whips, instead of allowing us 90 minutes from 10 pm to 11.30 pm—the strict entitlement to which we could be confined—arrange earlier in the day consideration of business of no great importance that will not run until 10 o'clock.
We saw that with the Foreign Compensation (Amendment) Bill this afternoon. I do not believe that I am breaching any tradition of the House or divulging anything untoward in saying that, because the usual channels do not operate in our case. It appears that the Whips decided to arrange business in such a way as to give more time to Northern Ireland—a gesture to mollify us after our criticisms.
Nevertheless, that is not a good approach. Giving us half a dozen hours to debate an appropriation order which is wide-ranging and diffuse—and which consequently empties the House—is not a satisfactory method of handling Northern Ireland business. I hope that serious consideration will be given to that issue.
We expect that during the next few days the Secretary of State for Scotland will make a statement that has been heralded by the press, and by the right hon. Gentleman himself, as being concerned with "enhancing", to use the word employed by the Secretary of State in Scottish Question Time last December, the way in which the House handles Scottish business. I hope that minds will be similarly concentrated on the way in which the House considers Northern Ireland business.
The hon. Member for Mid-Ulster (Rev. William McCrea) referred to the absence of other hon. Members from this debate. The electorate of Northern Ireland will see part of these proceedings and will notice that—[interruption.] I notice that a Conservative Back Bencher has entered the Chamber as I speak, thus breaking the duck that has existed for some time. Viewers in Northern Ireland will notice the level of interest in Northern Ireland matters displayed by the Conservative party, and no doubt they will take that into account when they consider whether to vote for Conservative candidates in the forthcoming local government elections.
The hon. Member for South Down (Mr. McGrady) repeated his complaint about the way in which the Northern Ireland aspect of the autumn statement was handled, with the issue of press releases in Belfast rather than by statements in the House. That practice, too, must be reviewed. It happens with not only the autumn statement but many other announcements. When Scottish or Welsh matters are involved, statements are made in the House. Such statements would give Northern Ireland Members an opportunity to ask questions. Instead, a press release is issued, usually in Belfast—and that is unsatisfactory.

Rev. Martin Smyth: Does my hon. Friend agree that difficulties are created for Northern Ireland Members when newspaper and radio journalists in Belfast who do not know much about a subject telephone for our opinions on something that we have not even seen? That is one consequence of press releases being issued in Belfast without hon. Members who represent Northern Ireland constituencies being given any notification of their content.

Mr. Trimble: I entirely endorse my hon. Friend's observation.

Mr. Beggs: Perhaps I may give my hon. Friends some hope that things are changing. Already, a Minister has made a point of inviting some of us to discuss matters on which he is about. to make a statement, before press releases are issued.

Mr. Trimble: I thank my hon. Friend for drawing attention to the first occasion on which the normal courtesies are being extended to Northern Ireland Members.

Mr. Mates: Whether or not it is the first time, I remind the hon. Gentleman that I made a point of inviting Northern Ireland party leaders to Stormont, so that they were fully briefed before anything was released to the press. That is a result of the developing relationship over the summer—the talks process—and I am glad to hear the hon. Member for Antrim, East (Mr. Beggs) acknowledge that that was helpful. I will always try to continue keeping hon. Members who represent Northern Ireland constituencies informed of decisions that we are taking and are about to announce. I understand the hon. Gentleman's point about statements to the House, but that matter is not for me.

Mr. Trimble: I thank the Minister for his remarks, and take his point about not being in control of statements in the House, or about decisions in that regard—although the hon. Gentleman is not without influence. I will, however, quarrel with his response to my hon. Friend the Member for Antrim, East (Mr. Beggs). Usual courtesies and the procedures of the House ought not to be doled out by the Government as a reward for good conduct. They are something to which we are entitled as a right. If the Minister reads his remarks, he will understand my meaning.
The hon. Member for Wigan (Mr. Stott) and other hon. Members mentioned the impact of high electricity charges. I fully agree with those comments, and cite the example in my constituency of a firm that is suffering greatly as a result of rising electricity prices. The significant point is not so much the overall increase to industry as the growing differential between electricity prices in Northern Ireland and those in Great Britain.
In recent years, electricity charges to large users have risen from being 18 per cent. more expensive in Northern Ireland to 25 per cent. more expensive, which puts local industry at a disadvantage. The company in my constituency to which I refer is Lurgan Fibres–60 per cent. of whose output is sold on the English market. That firm is in competition with one other, in Yarmouth, but it is saddled with the massive handicap of paying electricity and energy prices 25 per cent. higher than those in England. Consequently, that company must push down the cost of its raw materials, endeavour to be more efficient —which it does—and review the wages that it pays. That reinforces the tendency for Northern Ireland to have a low-wage economy, which is clearly not desirable. Companies must find a way of counterbalancing the economic disadvantages that they suffer. Energy costs must be considered in a more energetic way.
Of course, it is better to be in a job than out of a job. The hon. Member for Wigan also mentioned unemployment. As the hon. Member for South Down suggested, the blasé statements issued by Northern Ireland Office Ministers—not that I wish to personalise matters—about Northern Ireland not suffering from the recession as much as other parts of the United Kingdom are very misleading. Our position continues to deteriorate. It may not be deteriorating quite as fast as the position in England and Wales, but, as the hon. Member for South Down pointed

out, that is partly because they are catching up with us. It is also partly due to the large proportion of employment in Northern Ireland that is in the public sector.
Public-sector employment is not subject to the same pressure as private-sector employment. If private-sector employment is viewed separately, it is shown to be suffering from the recession just as badly as private-sector employment elsewhere—perhaps even worse. The further depression of the private sector, especially the manufacturing sector, is disastrous for Northern Ireland.
Having said that, let me add that Northern Ireland is faced with a tremendous unemployment problem, especially in the long term. Certain features of the unemployment figures are not altogether reliable. I am not referring to the familiar Labour point about the change in the basis of calculation to minimise those figures; I am talking about the way in which, in some respects, the Northern Ireland statistics overstate the problem of people on the dole.
It is a familiar problem. The hon. Member for Mid-Ulster said that the Cookstown area of his constituency had been recorded as having the second-highest unemployment rate. He will know that, if he goes down to the lough shore, he will observe that a number of people drawing the dole are fishermen doing the double. They are doing that by over-fishing Lough Neagh, thus doing great harm to the lough. The construction industry is also notorious for the extent to which its employees are on the double.
In certain areas—especially near the border—the normal administrative processes do not operate effectively. That means that more people are on the double. I believe that if those processes were effective and the number of people on the double could be reduced, the unemployment figures would fall slightly. Moreover, the structure of the statistics—the nature of the persons unemployed—would be different, and that would have policy implications for the Government.
I am sorry that the Minister responsible is not in the Chamber, but one aspect of the matter will present him with a challenge when he returns to Northern Ireland. Perhaps he will have a look at the figures, and find out whether Mr. Gerry Adams—who was elected to serve the constituency of Belfast, West, but never discharged his duties—is still drawing the dole. As everyone knows, Mr. Adams is a senior executive in a multi-million-pound business. I shall not describe the nature of that business, but hon. Members are familar with its nature. Mr. Adams ought not to be drawing unemployment benefit now. That question epitomises part of the difficulty, and illustrates my reason for wanting a more rigorous approach.
Let me now raise some constituency matters. First, I wish to follow the hon. Member for South Down by referring to health boards and hospitals. Other hon. Members have also mentioned the massive problems engendered by the way in which the health boards are operating, and by the way in which they are reviewing hospitals. My constituency falls within the Southern health board area, and I am therefore affected by the "Making Choices" review. The board is threatening to close two of the three hospitals in my constituency.
Of course, the review is on-going; it could be said that we must wait for the outcome. The review document, however, is written in a way that points to a particular outcome: it clearly indicates the future confinement of acute services to just three hospitals in the border area


—Daisyhill hospital in Newry, the Craigavon central hospital and South Tyrone hospital. Moreover, it points to the closure of all the other small hospitals in the area, including, in my constituency, Lurgan and Banbridge hospitals. That would be a retrograde action.
An important part of Lurgan's hospital provision is continuing care for the elderly—a service which should be provided as locally as possible. Even if they have to travel another half-dozen miles, the relatives of the elderly may be affected, because they are often not particularly mobile themselves. Care should be provided as close as possible to the people concerned. Perhaps the principle of subsidiarity has an application here.
The position of Banbridge hospital is even worse, because it provides a wider range of services. It is in an area with a substantial population, which is growing rapidly. That in itself argues against closure. It is no good the Minister saying that this is a matter for the board, and that the Department will not become involved until later; I see a real need for the Department to be involved at this stage. I think that it should re-examine its own regional strategy framework, and to ensure that the reviews give appropriate weight to the question of accessibility.
The Department should also take consistency into account. I have reason to believe that, in the implementation of regional strategy, the Eastern health board is using different criteria from the Southern health board in measuring the delivery of acute and general hospital services. Greater weight should be given to advances in medical technology which now make it possible for an increasing number of surgical and medical treatments to be carried out locally. Local hospitals such as Banbridge could become centres of excellence in that regard: such developments have proved successful in the United States and in other European countries.
We need to ensure that the interests of patients are paramount in the review. Again, that raises the question of the structure of health boards, and the way in which they operate. I must question whether the way in which the health boards operate now makes patients' interests paramount. As the Minister knows, the structure of the boards has been changed to allow the removal of elected representatives and their replacement by nominated representatives. Generally, those who have been nominated are not representative of the community and—I hate to say it—they are not persons of character. They do not seem to be able to stand up to the officials and other board members. I am forced to conclude that the board's decisions are made in the interests of bureaucrats, consultants and those running the hospitals, rather than in the interests of patients.
Let me draw the Minister's attention to a couple of local government matters, one of which arises under the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) (Northern Ireland) Order 1985, which relates to such matters as entertainment licences. I ask the Minister to consider the experience of Banbridge in regard to a nightclub known as Circus Circus, and the council's difficulty in trying to control the impact on the local community.
The Minister will know about the drug problem. The legislation was not adequate. Some progress was eventually made, but the maximum penalty clearly needs

to be raised. It is only £2,000 in Northern Ireland I understand that it is £20,000 in England and Wales. Why can there not be parity?
We also need clearly defined grounds in the legislation for refusing licences. Perhaps the Minister will look at the analogous procedure relating to sex establishments. The legislation needs to be amended to make enforcement more effective by preventing entertainment from being provided without restriction when an appeal is lodged.
Another minor local government matter where enforcement is not effective concerns the byelaws on the consumption of alcohol in public places. The byelaws are not working because of the requirement, in the Department's model byelaw, that a warning must be given before prosecution. That is interpreted in the courts as meaning a warning with regard to the specific incident on that night. That is not adequate. The byelaws should be looked at again. I have raised that matter unsuccessfully with the Department. Therefore, I ask the Minister to look at it, too.
Another minor matter concerning entertainment relates to gaming machines. There is reason to believe that there is considerable abuse, particularly with gaming machines that have been altered to make illegal payouts. I have heard of gaming machines with maximum payouts of £1,000 being operated in back rooms of certain premises, where the police cannot easily get at them. Even if they do get there, it is difficult to detect whether a particular gaming machine is being operated illegally.
I referred earlier to Lough Neagh when dealing with fishing matters. May I draw the Minister's attention also to the Lough Neagh rescue service. Lough Neagh is the largest inland water in the British Isles, but the Royal National Lifeboat Institution does not operate there because it is an inland water. On this huge inland water there is substantial fishing activity as well as an increasing recreational activity. There is a marina at Kinnego in my constituency. There are marinas elsewhere, including the one at Ballyronan, Antrim.
Aldergrove international airport is fairly close to the lough. We have not yet had a serious incident, but we could. The next airliner that tries to land at Langford lodge by mistake—as one aeroplane did, memorably, a few years ago—might find that the runway at Langford lodge is not long enough and that it ends up in the water. Obviously one does not want that to happen, but there is a danger that it could.
The only rescue facilities available there are provided voluntarily by the Lough Neagh rescue service, which was formed a number of years ago with one boat on the east of the lough and another boat at Kinnego. The service is funded by the district councils. Some time ago the Department was kind enough to make a capital grant, but engines and boats need to be replaced. There is the possibility of a third boat being provided in Antrim. Capital expenditure will be required. I hope that when the Lough Neagh rescue service goes to the Department—which it may have to do shortly—it will receive a favourable response.
I referred earlier to Kinnego bay. There is a serious problem there with the discharge of effluent into the middle of the marina. I have mentioned this problem before. I received assurances from the Minister that something would be done about it, but the question is when. On page 35, of the supplementary estimates for Northern Ireland, we see that provision is made for


long-term capital projects covering various sewage treatment works, but I see no sign of the Kinnego problem being dealt with in the period up to 1998. I hope that provision has been made for it elsewhere. Urgent action needs to be taken over the discharge of effluent from the Kinnego sewage treatment works into Kinnego bay. At the least, the outfall must be extended from Kinnego bay out into the lough, but the sewage treatment plant at Bullay's hill is not operating satisfactorily.
To turn to some development matters That affect my constituency in one form or another, the hon. Member for South Down complained about the land that has been provided for industrialists in the South Down area, It is just as bad in the portion of South Down that lies within the Upper Bann constituency. That brings me to the Banbridge area. No provision has been made there for industrial development. Discussions have taken place over several years between the Industrial Development Board, the council and others, but, as yet, no site has been provided.
I understand that the IDB has recommended a site adjacent to the main road between Newry and Belfast, commonly known as the Banbridge bypass. The council is prepared to support the site, if a new flyover can be constructed from the Banbridge bypass to the site. There is a bridge across the bypass which goes on to Bannview road, but the problem with the existing bridge is that it would bring inappropriate heavy industrial traffic through a residential area. For that reason, the council is anxious that a new bypass should be constructed. However, the construction of a new flyover may make the site expensive in terms of the way that the IDB looks at it. Nevertheless, I believe that a special case can be made out for that expenditure.
There is no industrial land in the Banbridge area. There was a small estate at Scarva road, but it is full. The planning service and the IDB acknowledge that a site is needed. They have been searching for over four years for a site, but, so far, no site other than this one appears to be suitable. I understand that already there are two businesses that would be interested in building factories if a site is located on the bypass.
That bypass is a strategically important route in Northern Ireland terms. It is the main Al route from Belfast to Dublin. There is a feeling, rightly, in the Banbridge area that the town has not received as much industrial development money as adjacent councils and that it has been ignored by the IDB. That omission needs to be remedied.
As for the Craigavon area, the Minister knows of the proposals in the new town studies concerning both Portadown and Lurgan. However, they hinge on major road proposals. I was disappointed that in the Minister's recent statement on road proposals Portadown and Lurgan appeared nowhere on the list for the next five years. It is difficult to see how the town centre studies can make progress without there being some indication of a commitment to the road proposals.
Even if major road proposals cannot be implemented, important minor developments could go ahead. The Minister may be aware that the crucial point for Portadown is the development of the Irwin bakery site in the centre of Portadown. I understand that Irwin's will be moving in the near future to a green-field site. That large area will then be liberated. There are imaginative plans for developing a major shopping-related attraction, which

would have an impact on the town and the surrounding area equivalent to that of the Richmond centre in Londonderry. For that to be successful, minor road adjustments have to be made, particularly at Mill avenue and the roundabout at Magowan's buildings.
In addition to those minor roadworks, progress needs to be made on the planning front. I understand that an application for outline planning permission was lodged with the Department 14 months ago. That development features strongly in the town centre study prepared for the Department by consultants. The development outlined in the consultants' report is the same as that for which the owners have sought outline planning permission. Yet 14 months after the application, we do not have a decision. The matter has been delayed. It is difficult to see how it can reasonably have been delayed because the purpose of outline planning permission is to enable the Department to give broad agreement in principle.
If there are difficulties with road matters, which clearly there will be until the Mill avenue and Magowan's buildings roundabouts are sorted out, they can be covered by simply reserving those matters for later detailed applications. Obtaining outline permission is an important stage for the developers and it is regrettable that we have had such a delay.
As the Minister will know, our major problem in Lurgan, apart from blight created by road proposals, which has existed in some areas for 20 years, is dealing with the consequence of the massive bomb almost a year ago. My hon. Friend the Member for Londonderry, East (Mr. Ross) discussed the problems that the bomb at Coleraine had produced for his area. Exactly the same problems continue to exist in Lurgan town centre.
I commented on another occasion on what appeared to be a favourable development in the policy that the Department adopted on major incidents. I am thinking in particular of the Belvoir bomb. The Department was responsible for encouraging the Housing Executive to make an immediate offer to sort out the properties of residents nearby. It tailored that response to the situation rather than sitting back and letting people apply for criminal damage or criminal injury compensation through the statutory procedures. I welcomed that because it was a good idea to tailor the response.
I should like to see more done. Care should also be taken in dealing with those whose trade suffers as a result of incidents. Businesses suffered a loss of trade as a result of the major bomb incident in Lurgan town centre. For many months after the incident, travel through the town was severely restricted. Many businesses that were not directly affected by the bomb suffered substantially through loss of trade. Many were family businesses and their financial future was threatened. Clearly, the income and living standard of those carrying on the businesses diminished sharply.
Consideration should be given to ways of giving help to people who suffer loss of trade as a result of incidents. I realise that it would require legislation. Such people could be given a rates holiday. When developers start a development and lease property, it is common to give rent holidays to enable them to start up the business. Similar help could be given through rates holidays. We could also consider a mix of grants or soft loans to assist people. Something needs to be done. The threat still exists of major bomb incidents in town centres. I realise that there would be implications for not only Northern Ireland, because


similar problems could develop elsewhere. It would be a good idea for people to have their thinking caps on before dealing with the issue.
I have a major problem with the vexed matter of urban development in general. In addition to the Northern Ireland spring supplementary estimates, I shall refer to the document "Expenditure Plans and Priorities. The Government's Expenditure Plans", published as one of the departmental reports following the autumn statement. It is an interesting paper. It details the plans and proposals that are being implemented. Under the heading "Urban Regeneration" we find references such as:
Urban Development Grant is the principal urban regeneration measure in Northern Ireland, aimed at the most run down parts of Belfast and Londonderry.
There is the problem. UDG is aimed only at Belfast and Londonderry.
Paragraph 7.108 says:
UDG continues to be targeted in areas where regeneration has been slow to occur, in particular the areas covered by the Belfast Action Teams.
That reinforces the problem. The urban development grant exists only for Belfast and Londonderry. But they are not the only areas of need or the only areas where regeneration is slow to occur. There are other areas of need, but we do not have Government programmes for those areas.
I notice from the Northern Ireland spring supplementary estimates that even in the urban development grant there appear to have been substantial reductions of about £1–5 million in current expenditure and £1·5 million in capital expenditure. There appears to be an increase under another heading. Under heading B.3 entitled "Urban Regeneration", the document says that £2 million will be spent on community economic regeneration schemes in the current year.
A total of £3·4 million will be spent on the community regeneration improvement special programme. That looks good until one realises that those programmes are not directly administered by the Department. Indeed, CRISP does not even feature in the Government's expenditure plans, even though it seems to involve £3·4 million of taxpayers' money. The reason is that while the programme is funded by taxpayers' money it is not under Government control. It is transferred to the International Fund for Ireland, which administers it in Northern Ireland. It appears that the Government take no responsibility for decisions on those programmes.
In the past the Government have refused to answer questions that I have tabled about CRISP. No one appears to be accountable for the expenditure. It is run by the IFI. Indeed, I recall attending a conference more than a year ago organised by housing associations at which a representative of the IFI appeared. He was asked to make a statement about the programmes which he was responsible for administering. He is one of the four officers of the IFI who is responsible for a certain geographical area. He introduced the topic by telling the people at the conference that he had a sum to spend of many millons of pounds—the exact figure escapes me—and that he was not accountable to anyone. He could spend the money whatever way he liked. Yet half of what he spent was taxpayers' money. That is not satisfactory as a matter of

principle and because the IFI administers some of the money under what it calls its development programme in a biased manner.
I shall give one example. There was a development in my constituency—in Killycomaine in the town of Portadown—where there are some run-down shops on a housing estate with flats over them. Some of the persons there approached the IFI for support. At the same time, some persons with a virtually identical problem in the Tunnel area of Portadown approached the IFI for support. Both applications were encouraged, but then the goalposts changed. The people in Killycomaine were told that they were too far out of the town and their project did not go ahead. But the project in the Tunnel went ahead.
I see the hon. Member for Mid-Ulster laughing. He is familiar with the local social geography. The project in the Nationalist area went ahead while that in the Unionist area was turned down. That example is repeated again and again when one looks at the report produced by the IFI. It operates in a biased manner. The IFI discriminates shamefully in its operation. That is intolerable.
I have complained that the IDB has failed to deal with parts of my constituency. I have complained also that the IFI has not been fair in its application within the constituency. There is a common factor and a common person between the two bodies. As the head of both the IDB and the IFI we find Mr. McGuckian. I had occasion to refer to him at our party conference. I said that he was appointed as head of the IDB at the insistence of the Irish Government. I underline the word "insistence". I said at that party conference many months ago that I had that information from a well-placed, authoritative and well-informed source. Afterwards, journalists said that they knew who the source was and agreed that my information was accurate. Of course, I shall not reveal the source, but it was accurate.
Mr. McGuckian was appointed at the insistence of the Irish Government. We can speculate why that happened, and what he is carrying out, but he heads the IFI, a body which consciously discriminates. I refer to that person in particular because I notice from the press that this week he has been quick to allege, without sufficient foundation or justification, that Queen's university has acted in a discriminatory manner. One's only comment about that allegation is: what cheek, for a man who heads an organisation which from its inception has been discriminatory and continues to be so, to try to pluck the mote out of someone else's eye.

Rev. William McCrea: Does the hon. Gentleman agree with me that many people in the Province cannot understand why that one person seems to be appointed to so many key posts? Is there no one else in the Province who is qualified to take some of those posts and assist the said gentleman with the heavy burden placed upon his shoulders?

Mr. Trimble: I note that point. On the other hand, I want to be fair and put a slightly different viewpoint for a moment. The gentleman is not without talents, skills and achievements. He is the sort of person whom one would have expected n the normal course of events to obtain certain public appointments. Nevertheless, the scale of preferment is remarkable, and when we know what one of the factors behind that scale of preferment is, question marks must arise. My main reason for referring to that


matter now is the remarkable contradiction whereby a person complains about alleged discrimination while practising discrimination himself. As the hon. Member for Mid-Ulster said, the matter also raises major questions about the way in which Government appointments are made, which is also often discriminatory. However, that is a huge topic, and perhaps it is a topic for another day.

Sir James Kilfedder: As the first, and perhaps the only, hon. Member to do so, I welcome the Minister of State's announcement last week about the Government's spending plans for Northern Ireland for the coming three financial years, 1993 to 1996, involving a total of £23·1 billion.
Of course, I could ask for more money. I have many projects in mind which are dear to my heart and which I should like to see implemented in Northern Ireland. Many problems in Northern Ireland could be rectified easily and quickly by an influx of money. None the less, it is right and proper to express appreciation of that total amount of money. I am sure that many people in other parts of the United Kingdom would say that Northern Ireland was getting a fair crack of the whip, but there are exceptional circumstances in Northern Ireland which require exceptional treatment. I have pointed out those factors in previous debates on appropriation, and some of them have been touched upon today.
The publication of the report entitled "Expenditure Plans and Priorities for Northern Ireland" was intended
to let the public know how we intend to spend these substantial resources and what we hope to achieve over the next three years".
The public—I use the word which appeared in the report —certainly have a right to know, but the matter should not stop there. Once a sum of money has been allocated to the Province, the people of Northern Ireland, through their elected representatives, should have the right to decide how taxpayers' money should be allocated between the various Government Departments and regions, and to choose the priorities to be adopted in Northern Ireland.
It is ludicrous that Ulster Members of Parliament have only this relatively short debate twice a year to discuss the Northern Ireland economy and all branches of the Northern Ireland administration. I shall not repeat what has been said already, but I accept what the hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble) and others have said about the nature of the issue and the need for a proper structured debate. Indeed, I believe that such matters can be properly discussed and examined, at least to start with, only by a Select Committee which could call witnesses and experts and undertake examinations of civil servants and Ministers.
After all, this is the Northern Ireland budget. The Budget for the rest of the United Kingdom is given plenty of time in the House, and we need a proper way of examining Northern Ireland's finances. It is important that Northern Ireland Members of Parliament should be given the opportunity fully to scrutinise Government expenditure and to probe Government policies. Only through the closest possible examination can we establish a degree of democratic responsibility. Again, I shall not refer to what has already been said about the fact that the administration in Northern Ireland lacks the full democratic element which exists in the rest of the United Kingdom.
The new figure for unemployment in Northern Ireland is, I believe, 108,009. That is a tragedy for so many people in the Province. Those are human beings and they deserve our compassion. They are men and women, husbands and wives, mothers and fathers, and sons and daughters, all of whom are out of work and seeking jobs. I say that most of them are seeking jobs. In Northern Ireland, as in other parts of the United Kingdom and throughout the world, there may be people who do not want to work and who a re prepared to live on public money, but the unemployed people whom I know and who come to see me desperately need jobs. There are people with great skills or who have been to university yet cannot find a job, and other people who have left school and are seeking employment. Those young people leave their schools full of hope, idealism and ambition. They have every right to feel ambitious—yet they face an almost permanent place in the dole queue.
What applies to young people applies also to the man who expects to be the breadwinner for his family. He is demoralised and robbed of his dignity by being jobless. More must be done to deal with the dreadful situation of the unemployed. Unemployment is a terrible scourge. We must recognise that and, once we have done so, more must be done to remedy it.
I am thinking about unemployment throughout Northern Ireland, and I sympathise with anyone who is out of work, but I am thinking in particular about the unemployed people in my constituency of North Down. The Government and the Industrial Development Board seem to regard North Down as an affluent area which does not require special measures or efforts. I fear that Northern Ireland Office Ministers and senior officials move only among professional people and people with considerable wealth.
Without actually looking at him, I can sense that my hon. Friend the Member for Eltham (Mr. Bottomley), who is sitting beside me, is shaking his head. However, I have not yet heard of any Minister or senior civil servant, or any senior member of the IDB or of anything else, calling in at what in England would be called working class homes—we do not have those class divisions in Northern Ireland, thank God. I have not heard of any such person coming to Kilcooley or any other estate. I should be delighted if any of my hon. Friends knew of anyone who had called in, not as a response to an invitation but just to have a cup of tea, a spot of lunch or some fish and chips.

Mr. Peter Bottomley: I would not want to disagree entirely with my hon. Friend, but I am sure that he would agree that many people in the Northern Ireland civil service and officials from various Departments spend a lot of time with ordinary people—many of them might be called ordinary people themselves—but his admonition to people like me, former Ministers, that we should meet local people more often could be accepted.

Sir James Kilfedder: I am glad that my hon. Friend agrees with me about the need for closer contact with ordinary people, most of whom have problems of one kind or another. It is good to have contact with them. I do not believe that I could be an adequate Member of Parliament unless I talked constantly to people of all varieties throughout my constituency and spent time calling in at their houses or meeting them at my surgery.
I could take Ministers to areas in my constituency, Bangor, Holywood, Dundonald and other parts, where


the young and the old are frustrated by their long-term unemployment. In the press release issued today the Minister of State said:
It is also very encouraging that, despite these recessionary times, Northern Ireland continues to attract large inward investment projects.
I am sure that the Minister did not intend to give a false impression of the Northern Ireland economy, but I do not accept that it continues to attract large inward investment projects. There is a desperate need for more investment in my constituency. If we are to witness a fierce attack on the deplorable dole queues, the Government must take more strenuous steps to encourage potential investors and industrialists to establish new manufacturing industries in the Province. We certainly need them in North Down, which has a large population and a tremendous number of people out of work. More must be done to bring industry there. The hon. Member for South Down (Mr. McGrady) also said that new industries were needed in his area.
We need to mobilise the entire community in a radical campaign to revitalise the economy and to provide the jobs which are desperately needed. I accept that Ulster is suffering bitterly from a terrorist campaign that has lasted 23 years. Those terrorists not only slaughter innocent people and mutilate tens of thousands of others, but seek to destroy the Northern Ireland economy. I also accept that Northern Ireland is suffering from the recession in common with every other part of the United Kingdom and certain regions in the world. That recession continues to bite deeply in Northern Ireland. However, we must not allow either terrorism or the recession to provide a feeble excuse for a listless economy and a record number of unemployed.
Some years ago, in a similar debate on a Northern Ireland appropriation order, I offered to travel anywhere in the world with Ministers—that is offering something —and Opposition representatives to win investment and orders for Northern Ireland. I repeat that offer now. We must do more to bring industry and investment to Northern Ireland. We must do more to provide jobs for those who are desperately in need of work.
I remind the Minister that my constituency is composed of marvellous people with great skills and talents. We have schools and colleges that are among the best in Northern Ireland. Those people have a major contribution to make and it is a tragedy that their talents are being wasted. I am biased, but I think that the North Down area provides an ideal place for anyone who wishes to set up a light industry, particularly one that uses high technology. The local people have the ability and, if not, they can be trained to obtain the necessary skills. Anyone who comes to North Down is thrilled by the beauty of the area, which is washed by the blue waters of the Irish sea.
I have the impression that the IDB largely ignores the merits of North Down and, sadly, encourages industrialists to go elsewhere in the Province. That impression is shared by many others in my constituency. There also seems to be a reluctance on the part of the IDB to provide more finance to enable existing firms in North Down to expand and thus to provide more jobs.
I hope that the Minister will accept my invitation to meet a group of business people in my constituency. If the Government worked with them, it would be possible to galvanise the local economy to attract investment, new

companies and more jobs. The local business men are not concerned about politics, so they are not competing for votes. That is their great merit. Like me, they wish to see business expansion and more jobs for the jobless. I plead with the Minister: let us show compassion for the jobless and let us engage in a drive which will bring employment and investment to Northern Ireland.
My other plea to the Minister relates to the great problem affecting shop owners in Bangor. The local chamber of commerce and the National Association of Shopkeepers have raised with me the unacceptable loss of income suffered by shop owners in the borough as a result of road works which have been undertaken in the past 12 months. Those works seem to me to have been going on for far longer than a year. The pavements and roads were dug up and traffic was restricted and diverted. Those difficulties lasted for a long time. Everyone accepts the need for road improvements and pavement renewal—that is the price of progress—but local shopkeepers in Main street and High street, Bangor, and in the adjoining roads and streets, should not be penalised. They pay large sums of money in rates—one might almost say that they are subject to exorbitant rates demands—and their rents are also reviewed upwards all the time. Many of the local shops are facing great difficulties already, and on top of all that they were faced with the impossible trading conditions created by the DOE road works scheme, which drove many customers from their doors. As a result, they have lost a great deal of money.
The heart of Bangor could end up being composed of insurance companies, banks, estate agents, building societies and similar businesses, which will not be so beneficial to the local people or those who visit Bangor. That would be disastrous for the heart of Bangor, and I urge the Minister to consider the plea that I am conveying to him on behalf of shop owners. In view of the work which has lasted so long and the tremendous losses that traders have suffered, the full amount of rates should be reimbursed for the period in question. Justice certainly demands that, and I demand it in the name of all the shopkeepers.
I request the Minister to come to Bangor. I know that he has been there many times. I know that he likes the place and its people—and the people like him. I appeal to him to come and meet representatives of the chamber of commerce, who will produce documentary evidence in support of that loss. When he is there, he can come to my home and meet the ordinary people of North Down.

Rev. Martin Smyth: I support the remarks of the hon. Member for North Down (Sir J. Kilfedder) about the need for Ministers to meet the ordinary people of Northern Ireland. The last Minister that I recall visiting ordinary people in my constituency was the present Governor of Hong Kong, who came to the Annadale estate.
We in Northern Ireland have reached the position when a civil servant may advise us the day before, or even the morning of, an event that a Minister will be in our constituency. I am not sure whether civil servants expect us to be in a position to join the Minister at such short notice. Or are they just fulfilling all righteousness? I am sure that


more courtesy is shown to hon. Members who represent other constituencies and that they are given more warning to enable them to be present with the Minister.
I suppose that it is all part of civil servants trying to corral Ministers. I recall a Minister visiting a part of south Belfast and making a promise to the residents. His advisers thereafter tried to rescue him from that promise. Indeed, they assured me that he had not given it. Those who were there at the time still believe that he gave it, but as I was not present, I cannot make an objective comment one way or the other.
Reference has been made to the nature of today's debate. The tragedy is that that mentality—of not extending to us the courtesy that hon. Members generally expect—has reduced those of us who represent Northern Ireland constituencies to the local council level. In short, we are not treated in the same way as Ministers treat other hon. Members.
As the debate has proceeded, I have been thinking that we are rather in the position of doctors in their surgeries. They are made aware of only the complaints and, in the main, meet people with problems. Hon. Members are in the same position, even though out there in the healthy world are constituents happy enough with what is happening in their lives. It is the nature of the game that, as we examine the situation, we bring problems into the open.
I should not like the debate to pass without tribute being paid to some of the excellent work that has been done in recent years by the more energetic Ministers in the Northern Ireland Office. I say that because there is a tendency on the part of some people to paint Northern Ireland so black that when people visit us they are utterly amazed to discover what a marvellous place it is. Indeed, I regret to say that public representatives sometimes join television people and others from the media and give a distorted picture of the Province. Fortunately, far more good things than bad are going on there.
I recall on one occasion being in the United States and being asked, "What is it like to live there?" I replied, "Not any worse than living in the lovely bay area of San Francisco, where 27 murders took place last weekend." We sometimes get the position out of proportion.
Even so, we are concerned about accountable democracy, and it is difficult to hold in one's head the various items in the Minister's statement as he glossed over the sweep of the order before the House and the sums being granted for the ensuing year. I was reminded of the occasion when, with others representing various parties in Northern Ireland, he briefed us on public expenditure issues. I asked at the time what would happen at the year end if there was a surplus. I was assured that there never was a surplus and that all the money was always spent.
Having been the chairman of the Northern Ireland finance committee at the time of the assembly, I was aware that that was not altogether true. To my utter amazement, I found on reading the report of the Comptroller and Auditor-General that in the last year for which figures are available, 1991–92, there was an underspend of about £50 million, which was returned to the Consolidated Fund. I could not understand how it could be said that we had spent all the money at a time when, for example, a decision had been taken in principle to resite a new hospital on a green-field site in Coleraine.
We had been urging that that resiting should be done in stages. About £12 million of underspend, according to my

reading of the accounts, could have been used for that purpose. We live in an era of creative accountancy. Accountants and auditors, when drawing up reports and balance sheets, manage to obscure rather than reveal. One must be well-informed to find one's way through one of their labyrinthine reports. I hope that I have not misread the report to which I referred. If I have, the Minister will correct me. It seems wrong that when there is such a pressing need in the area of the Northern board area, some of that money cannot be spent on that project in Coleraine. After all, the plan is available and there is no question of having to start from scratch.
The Department of the Environment's vote 1 refers to money spent on parking. What is the state of play in the Department concerning residents' parking? Since 1983 I have been pressing for action on that front, but the only response I have received is to the effect that legislation to enable parking to be provided for residents is not available. I have said that, being the responsible Department, it should initiate the necessary legislation. The only answer I have been given is that the situation is more difficult than that.
I have constantly said that if legislation is available for residents's parking in England, it should be available in Northern Ireland. Eventually I was told that the Department had four pilot schemes in hand. Interestingly, they were supposed to be in south Belfast. I can appreciate why they might have been there. I gathered that one was to have been in east Belfast, but I could not understand why it should be in the area proposed when we were attempting to deal with traffic congestion.
If they were to have been in south Belfast in Stranmillis, Pakenham street and Joy street, those familiar with the area would have accepted that pilot schemes there would be worth while. But I could not comprehend why a scheme should be conducted in the Short Strand, in east Belfast, unless there was a particular section of overcrowding in the Short Strand area which was unknown to anybody else. What is the present position? The latest rumour is that no pilot schemes are being held and that the Department is not continuing its examination of residents' parking.
While I welcome, under that vote, the widening of roads and the belated upgrading of highways, I remember the words of the Roman Catholic Archbishop of Dublin, who told me many years ago, "I have always told the Dublin Government that if they are that interested in a united Ireland, they should improve the road from Dublin to Belfast." I cannot understand why the Department is pouring so much money into the stretch of road south of Newry, creating a bottleneck in the Irish Republic, when money is urgently needed to upgrade the Lame road.
Ministers have told us that the CBI has been pressing for the upgrading of the Dublin road. The CBI and business people and some outside Northern Ireland have argued that the number one priority is the upgrading of the Belfast to Larne motorway. Even a dual carriageway would be a decided advantage.
Looking at vote 2 of the Department of the Environment, I ask whether it is not within the terms of grants for the upgrading of houses that occupiers, tenants, have a right to these grants. Or have restrictions been imposed so that only owners can get grants? An 80-year-old woman who has lived in her home for 40 or 50 years has been told that since she is only the occupier and not the owner she is not eligible for a grant to improve her home.
In the context of awareness of problems that have arisen constantly over decisions made without thinking through to the ultimate impact, may I raise with the Minister the question of the buy-back scheme? We are thankful that it was introduced and it obviously met with greater success in Northern Ireland than was expected, but I have pensioner constituents who saw the scheme advertised, and got in touch with the Housing Executive straight away. Their own estate agent was also in touch. The house was examined and surveyed and a price agreed. In the light of that agreement, a verbal understanding, all that was needed was for contracts to be signed. They went ahead with the purchase of a retirement home in North Down that suited them. Then their hopes were shattered when they were told "We are not buying your property", on the ground, I am told, that having met such demands on the scheme, the Housing Executive introduced a rationing scheme for the various areas of Northern Ireland and said that it was not going to purchase more than two homes in that area of my constituency. It seems to me that, even in this world of lowered moral standards, a man's word should be his bond and that a Government Department that gives a verbal understanding to purchase should not quibble because there is no written contract.
In vote 4, there is an amount of £141,000 shown as savings, a decrease. Why was that money not used to upgrade some of the unadopted rear entries which are a blight upon the environment? It is near time that we grappled with that problem. I recognise that it is a big problem, but we shall not tackle a big problem unless we start on it and I trust that where there is money of that nature available it will be used purposefully.
I welcome the increase that has been set aside under the health and social services heading but we need more understanding of where it is going. Under vote 1, how much has been spent on Project 2000 in Northern Ireland? I have seen the figures for England and Wales and I know that it is moving forward in Northern Ireland, but I have not yet discovered whether it is moving forward successfully or how much money is being spent. I recognise that there is a case for closing some units and cutting out wastage. I regret that the hon. Member for Mid-Ulster (Rev. William McCrea) is not here at present. I realise why that is, but he referred to the closure of the wards for mental patients in the Tyrone county hospital. I remember visiting that hospital and I pay tribute to the work that is done there. I also remember that a member of the local committee who had a child with mental health problems said to me "It is a pity that they did not let you see the locked up ward." I am delighted to see more and more people moved out into smaller units in the community rather than being locked up in some of these larger institutions.
If a building is not being properly used for something else, it is a detriment to the community, but not necessarily a detriment to those who have been in those institutions in the past.
May I ask the Minister on what objective grounds the Department directed a health board to go in a particular direction when it had had consultation and obstetricians and others had agreed with a system of maternity provision that would have allowed the maternity unit to continue in Downpatrick and would see the Jubilee being

the main centre in Belfast. Now Downpatrick is to be closed and the Eastern board has said that it will not purchase services from the Jubilee hospital. About 1,200 babies born to mothers from south Belfast were delivered in the Jubilee last year. The Jubilee has had a proud record, not only of care and quality of provision but of cost. To close that hospital will necessitate spending capital money in upgrading facilities elsewhere. When one considers the length of time to travel, not just from Downpatrick but from Kilkeel, Newcastle and South Down right up to the nearest provision, which is now being mentioned as Lagan Valley—and I realise that I am on dangerous ground here since my right hon. Friend represents Lagan Valley—one realises that it is not the proper use of scarce capital to close an institution eight miles down the road and scatter the patients elsewhere. 1 would go further and say that it seems to be a monstrosity for a senior official—as I mentioned in Question Time today—to spend the past three years trying to dissuade GPs from going under the Jubilee hospital.
As some right hon. and hon. Members will recall, I have raised this matter in the past. The board denied that it had happened, but I said on that occasion that the people to whom it was said and the person about whom it was said knew who was telling lies. I now have definite evidence that a senior member of the board dealing with public health was going round general practitioners trying to dissuade them from going near the Jubilee hospital. Thank God that those GPs were wiser than that man. The women in east Belfast, certainly those in the city centre and over towards Cregagh and many from Antrim, still choose to come to one of the finest places of maternity provision in the United Kingdom. I hope that the Department and the board will have second thoughts.
I know that it is possible I shall be told that it is a matter for the board, but since he who pays the piper calls the tune, it is the responsibility of the Department. Why was the general manager of the Eastern health and social services board who was retiring and had consultancy lined up in Europe appointed for a further two years? Is it because, as someone put it to me, he has a job to do: to close units in the Royal and the City, to maintain the Mater because of his own position in the Knights of Columbanus?
Reference has been made to cardiac surgery. The Minister knows that I have been concerned about it for a long time. I was amazed this week to discover in the Park-Davis survey that Northern Ireland is not as high on the list of areas in need of such surgery as we were led to believe. I understand, of course, that there is a problem in Northern Ireland, but it lies in fifth place in the league behind Wales, Scotland—that is certainly in first position —and sections of northern England. Are we tackling the problem in the right way? Does the problem go beyond the lack of theatre space, which has been extended? Has it something to do with the promotional pattern in the Royal Victoria hospital and the unwillingness of senior registrars to work in the department? I understand that one such registrar moved to England and was appointed as a surgeon in Newcastle. We must ask these questions because too many people in Northern Ireland have been waiting far too long for cardiac surgery. If there is a problem, it should be tackled.
I hope that trusts will not remove choice and forestall the right of general practitioners to purchase provision where they believe that they can get the best service at the best price.
I pay tribute to the allocation of funds to the Independent Living Foundation. Where does the Department stand in following through the attempts made to have an extension of the Peto institute in Northern Ireland? How far has it been funding Donaghadee? Is it prepared to fund Dungannon, or is it putting most of its backing into the Rapid Action for Conductive Education movement in Birmingham? The people in Northern Ireland have worked hard to promote conductive education and I trust that the Department will at last give them purposeful backing.

Mr. A. Cecil Walker: I am sure that the Minister is aware of the recent television programme about the exodus of Protestants from north Belfast. The programme was fairly factual in presenting many aspects of the problem, but the main issue was not addressed, which is the lack of decent houses in Protestant areas for Protestant people.
Before commenting further, I wish to make it clear that I am not drawing comparisons with the Catholic constituents. Instead, I congratulate them on their efforts to attain excellent housing in many areas of my constituency and on their accomplishments in being fully consulted by their various community groups on the design and construction of their new houses. A development that immediately springs to mind is the Unity flats complex, which demonstrates up-to-date designs with the use of excellent materials.
I am not laying the blame directly on the Housing Executive, which must work with criteria laid down by the Government which do not address the problem of Protestants being forced to vacate houses which are, to say the least, not fit to live in. It is necessary to examine the reasons for the exodus, which vary widely according to areas. I know that the Minister has some knowledge of the deprivation in the areas about which I am talking. He has promised to visit one of them in the near future. I know that he has a busy schedule, but I suggest that he should visit others, where he will see the problems for himself.
In the Duncairn-Tiger's Bay area—thanks to the efforts of the Minister's predecessor—an encompassing development has been planned, which embraces housing, industrial development and social needs. Unfortunately, there have been problems in reaching a consensus. I appeal for urgent action to get the new housing started in an attempt to halt the drift of population from housing which no longer serves its purpose. It has fallen into disrepair and is of an unacceptable standard.
The area of Downview on the Antrim road also needs urgent attention. There are old Orlit houses that were the subject of the housing defects order. They have deteriorated to such an extent that they are now referred to as the Downview slums. Many of them are being blocked up as the tenants cannot live in them. Other occupiers are waiting to get out at the first opportunity. A decision has not yet been taken to replace them.
Just off the main Crumlin road in the area of Rosewood street, Yarrow street and Albertville drive there were excellent brick-built terrace houses which have been

allowed to fall into disrepair. I have been endeavouring since 1983 to have these houses declared a housing action area project. There have been numerous appraisals amounting to nothing. In the meantime, the occupants have been forced to move, leaving the area semi-derelict.
Across the Crumlin road into the mid-Shankill area there has been a redevelopment programme, but it progressed at such a slow pace that it was impossible to retain the population. Consequently, phases planned for future development have been cancelled and the area has been sown with grass seed. It is prime housing land, but it is not being developed for much-needed housing, despite a waiting list in the area which will never be met.
Further up into the Woodvale-Ohio street-Enfield area there have been blighted housing conditions for the past 15 years. There was a reticence to do anything in the area. Responsibility was abrogated by declaring it to be a priority investment zone. There was, of course, no investment because of the conditions. Again, the Protestant population was forced to move out.
Another Protestant estate is situated in Glencairn. It was a jerry-built estate thrown up by cowboy contractors. The estate has suffered from that legacy ever since. The active community association has been vainly trying to have the estate upgraded, with the demolition of vacant maisonettes which have decayed to such an extent that the entire area is being brought into disrepute. It is another example of a reluctance or failure to provide basic living conditions.
The area of Alliance-Glenbryn has been allowed to fall into such disrepair that it is now almost a shell. There has been some effort to rehabilitate it, but that is not a solution. The area will have to be completely redeveloped if it is to be saved and if people are to be encouraged to return.
Many other areas in Protestant north Belfast will also require a sustained effort if they are to be saved, notably the Tyndale and Silverstream areas.
The Housing Executive cannot cope within its limited budget. Government funding will have to be specifically allocated to these areas if the exodus of Protestants is to be halted. Statutory agencies will also have to play a very large part in this process, as amenities will have to be provided to make for a balanced community at peace with itself.
In conclusion, I must draw attention to the terrible lack of employment opportunity in my constituency. I appeal for more enterprise zones to be declared. There are many deprived areas which could be used for this purpose and could provide local jobs for local people.

Mr. Clifford Forsythe: I will continue the litany of complaints that we have heard this evening. Unfortunately, this is the only forum in which we can bring them before Ministers, apart from writing to them or seeing them in our constituencies.
I will start with DOE vote 1 and refer to something that has to do with my own constituency, but also with the unemployment levels that other hon. Members have mentioned.
Can the Minister tell us why the Coopers and Lybrand report which was asked for by the Northern Ireland airport is to be kept secret, not only from those who are to be made redundant, but also from the trade union


representatives, and certainly from representatives of the public? If the reason is that it is a business tool, covered by business confidentiality, I foresee some difficulties in future if a trade sale, for instance, or a worker-management buy-out is considered for the airport. Where would that place certain employees of the airport? If it is covered by business confidentiality, surely there is some morality attached to it if some people have inside information and others have not.
Of course, if the airport is to be privatised—we do not agree that it should be, but believe that it should remain within the scope of the people of Northern Ireland—the only way to do it is by a share issue, which would allow all the people of Northern Ireland to have some say in the matter, considering all the public money that has been spent obtaining the international airport.
Will the Minister say why consultations with the work force did not take place before the announcement of the redundancies? It is not very good business practice to announce redundancies and then offer the work force opportunities to discuss matters that have already been decided. That is not consultation. Surely consultation should have taken place beforehand. Many workers at the airport will be made redundant, for whatever reason, on the basis of a report which no one is allowed to see. That is a very poor reward for those employees who have worked hard, given excellent service and been very loyal in difficult circumstances over many years.
On the Department of Social Security vote 4, I draw the Minister's attention to a problem which seems to have arisen in connection with housing benefit. When someone who is homeless applies to the Housing Executive to be housed, the applicant is told that his application cannot be accepted unless he gives an address. The Minister may think that it peculiar that someone who is homeless should be asked for an address, but that is the case.
This creates a problem for housing benefit, because, if an applicant gives an address and the occupier of that address is receiving DSS benefit, the person who has applied from that address simply to get on the housing list is reckoned to be living with the occupier, even though he or she is not doing so. Usually it is an accommodation address. Therefore, the housing benefit of the person who occupies the dwelling may be reduced by about £14 per week. That leaves the homeless in difficulty. They cannot apply for housing because they have not got an address, and they cannot make use of a friend's address because that affects the benefit which that person receives. The Minister should consider that carefully.
Like the rest of the United Kingdom, we have many problems with the disability living allowance. I congratulate the staff of the Department of Social Security, particularly those in the district offices who deal considerately with those applying for benefit. Leaving that on one side, there have been delays in Northern Ireland, as there have in the rest of the United Kingdom.
The forms are complicated. Applicants are so confused that they have no chance of getting benefit because of the way they complete the forms. As a member of the Select Committee on Social Services, I have said that it might be better if the box on the form about the need for assistance was at the end rather than the beginning. By the time

people had gone through the form, they might realise that they needed help. Completing the form is as difficult for some people as voting by proportional representation.
It should be suggested to the director of the agency that Northern Ireland Members of Parliament have the use of a hotline to facilitate them in solving problems with the disability allowance, as is the case in the rest of the United Kingdom. When the Select Committee visited Blackpool, I was pleased to see that facility there.
The position on the social fund has not changed. When people in receipt of benefit have not got enough money to live on and are obliged to take a loan from the DSS to overcome their difficulties, a deduction is made from their benefit. The result is that they have even less to live on. Some people may say that money is not available to provide more benefit. Unfortunately, those in difficulty turn to money lenders who charge high interest rates. Then the people turn to drugs or drink and end up in a much worse position.
On my favourite subject, planning, which is covered by vote 4 of the Department of the Environment, advice from local councillors seems to be ignored completely. In some cases exactly the opposite is carried out.
There are numerous inconsistencies in the attitude of the roads service to planning applications. Often, when there is no other impediment to the granting of permission, the roads service, for no apparent reason, expresses vehement opposition. On the other hand, it often seems that a plan to build a house on a corner, where no one else thinks a house should be allowed, is not objected to by the service.
I should like to refer to the agriculture condition that is sometimes attached to planning permission. Like most of my colleagues, I am a supporter of the farming community. However, I have to say that, in respect of planning permission, that community seems to have an advantage over everyone else.
Let us suppose that a farmer has lived in an area for 60 years and that a plumber has lived just down the road for the same length of time. When the farmer retires, he can secure planning permission for a retirement dwelling on the farm. The plumber is not in that happy position.
I have often complained about this. The Department ought to look at the entire matter of the agriculture condition. It is quite clear that we shall have white elephants throughout the countryside if such dwellings become vacant. Indeed, there are some already. Because of the agriculture condition, no one else is allowed to live in such a dwelling. Unfortunately, the standards that apply differ from area to area.
Diversification of land use is one aspect of planning law that applies to the rest of the United Kingdom but does not seem to apply to Northern Ireland. A farmer and his family who are not doing so well may wish to open a farm shop or some other establishment connected with farming. Such a facility would be of service to the community, and people who make inquiries are encouraged by the planning service to apply for permission. However, the application is turned down out of hand.
At the same time, we all know of developments that do not appear to fulfil the conditions or have planning permission. It appears that people who defy the planning service are okay if they have sufficient finance to take on the authorities, but things are very different for an ordinary applicant. If such a person fails to satisfy one condition in respect of permission to build a bungalow, the


Department takes him as far as it can. I agree with what the hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson) said about local knowledge being ignored by the Planning Appeals Commission. Surely local people are in a position to assist planners.
I said that planning is one of my favourite subjects, but my real favourite is quangos. Will the Minister, under the citizens charter, publish the names on the standing list for appointment to quangos? We know that there is such a list and we know some of the people on it, because they are serving on quangos. All Northern Ireland representatives are well known because they are elected, and the names of those on the list should be made public so that everybody knows who they are. If all was above board in that way, it would be more acceptable.

Rev. William McCrea: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that it is only natural that the community should know who is making the decisions? The quangos are certainly making major decisions affecting the people of Northern Ireland, but the names of those who serve on them are not well known, and are often hidden.

Mr. Forsythe: I agree. I shall make a few other remarks in agreement with what the hon. Gentleman has said. Before I do, I ask the Minister to make available the names of those who have been released by their firms to serve on quangos and whose firms are then recompensed for the loss of their services. That is possible, for example, in the case of the tourist board. I should be interested to hear how much money has been spent in that way.
Will the Minister also provide us with the names of those who have dual membership—those who serve on more than one quango and those who have moved from ordinary membership to chairmanship, or from chairmanship to ordinary membership? That would also be interesting.
There is also the prickly question of those who have been appointed to quangos specifically with Dublin approval. I know that Dublin approval is given under the Anglo-Irish Agreement. I hope that, in the interests of openness, the Minister will make available the names of such persons.

Mr. Peter Robinson: Will the hon. Gentleman rephrase his question so that the Minister cannot avoid answering it? What is written into the Anglo-Irish Agreement is that the Government of the Irish Republic can make proposals for any of the quangos. The hon. Gentleman might like to ask the Minister to list all those who have been proposed by Dublin for each quango, and those who have been accepted.

Mr. Forsythe: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his suggestion. I am always prepared to take advice, and I do so on this occasion. I am sure that the Minister heard the hon. Gentleman's question, which I now put to him.
The membership of quangos is a great bone of contention in Northern Ireland. The Minister may say that that is just a bee in the bonnet of some Northern Ireland Members, but that is not the case. We have to listen to complaints from our constituents. It is terrible that bodies consisting of members who are not elected but appointed, sometimes on recommendation from outside the United Kingdom, are handling 10 times more money and employing 10 times more people than the councillors who are elected every four years. It is dreadful that quangos

undergo no detailed scrutiny of any part of their operations. It is another shot in the locker for the Northern Ireland Select Committee. Even in that instance, a Select Committee would do a very good job.

Mr. William Ross: Perhaps my hon. Friend should also ask the Minister how the quangos are divided up on religious and political grounds. Whenever members of quangos are appointed in Great Britain, considerable information is given about their political affiliation. Surely the same information should be given in Northern Ireland. Because of the Fair Employment Commission, we should like to be assured that Ulster Unionists and members of the DUP were getting a fair crack of the whip. Perhaps we should be told how many members of those parties have been appointed.

Mr. Forsythe: I agree with my hon. Friend. We could ask for a great deal of information about quangos. The best solution could be not to have any quangos; then we might get on a lot better. But that is not quite true. Perhaps we should not malign those who have served well on them, although we disagree with the quangos.
I ask the Minister to pass on to his hon. Friend my congratulations on finally getting the Killead bypass on to this year's roads programme. Of course I am disappointed that the roads are not being improved in other parts of Northern Ireland. Perhaps I could be forgiven for mentioning the A26, which involves not only my constituency but getting patients from other constituencies to the new area hospital in Antrim. It is an essential road. It is most unfortunate that the road between Corrs Corner and the port of Lame is not in the programme. The work should have been done as soon as possible, to facilitate the journeys of the many people who travel through that port. Belfast and Lame complement each other, and I am sure that the people living in both of those ports would be happy to see them working fully all the time.
Unfortunately, there seems to be no overall strategy in the roads programme, as many hon. Members have said. One gets the impression that, if representatives of one particular roads section hammer the table, they will have more success during negotiations at a higher level for that area. I do not think that is the way to proceed. Surely it would have made much more sense for local councils to be responsible for repairing holes in the roads, street lights and drains, and for sweeping and repairing the footpaths. I suppose that we live in hope.
Water privatisation, which is right up my street—or perhaps that I should say, in my tool bag—is an unbelievable development. I know that the Community is setting water quality standards, but high-quality water is the one resource available to all citizens in Northern Ireland. It is one that they do not even think about, because it is always there. The long tradition of excellent service by the Northern Ireland water industry is well known. It goes back to the old days of the Belfast water commissioners, who were the standard bearers—and they could serve as an example to the rest of the United Kingdom.
In Northern Ireland, plumbers used to be registered. The rest of the United Kingdom never had that system. Unfortunately, when there was change, and Northern Ireland came under direct rule, plumbers no longer had to be registered. That was a great step back. There is no life


without water. The hon. Member for Londonderry, East (Mr. Ross) will agree that even potatoes are 90 per cent. water.
Several constituents asked me what is to be privatised next. The suggestion is that it will be air. I hesitate to suggest that. I see the Minister writing busily on his pad, but I plead with him not to adopt that idea.
Opposition to water privatisation is one of the few issues that completely unify the people of Northern Ireland. Like the Scots, we have a great deal of common sense. Perhaps I should not mention Scottish water in the context of a Northern Ireland appropriation order, but I do so in passing. The Minister and the Northern Ireland Office will find that the people of Northern Ireland are wholly united, as we said earlier, in opposing water privatisation.
There are many subjects that I have not mentioned, but I will refrain from doing so, because it would mean detaining the House for a long time, and I want to allow my hon. Friend the Member for Antrim, East (Mr. Beggs) to do a sweeper. He is a better sweeper than me, because I used to be a centre forward.

Mr. Roy Beggs: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for the opportunity to contribute to this debate. Acknowledging that the supplementary estimates seek parliamentary authority for further expenditure to that already sought in previous estimates, it is not my intention to oppose the order—though I remain opposed to the Order in Council procedure. However, the additional funds being made available will be welcome and will bring advantages to all sections of the people of Northern Ireland.
It will have been noted that all right hon. and hon. Members representing Northern Ireland constituencies give the highest priority to achieving higher employment levels in all parts of Northern Ireland and to reducing the appalling misery and poverty suffered by the 110,000 unemployed in Northern Ireland and their families. It is true that that is a long-standing problem, but responsibility for it cannot be attributed solely to the fact that the birth rate in Northern Ireland is higher than the birth rate elsewhere in the United Kingdom. Unemployment has increased because of a lack of success in creating new job opportunities, and because of the lack of employment opportunities in Great Britain, to which so many generations of our young people have had to travel to find work.
I applaud the recent success of the joint approach of my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, North (Mr. Walker) and the hon. Member for Belfast, West (Dr. Hendron). The success of their mission to the United States clearly demonstrated the ability of Ulster Unionists and constitutional nationalists to work together for the benefit of their constituents, Protestant and Roman Catholic alike. I hope that, when evaluating the valuable contribution of both hon. Members in support of officials of the Industrial Development Board seeking inward investment, the Minister will encourage similar cooperation between representatives of both communities in the search for future inward investment.
This year, we have heard some encouraging announcements about inward investment, including today's announcements. I believe that they reflect the energy expended by the former Minister, the hon. Member for Wiltshire, North (Mr. Needham), in his frequent travels overseas. I am delighted that the hon. Member for South Ribble (Mr. Atkins) is reaping the fruit of that labour, and —having settled into his post as Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office—is now embarking on overseas missions. We wish him success in his efforts to attract inward investment.
Hon. Members are often asked for suggestions of job creation measures that will bring wealth and prosperity. I draw the Minister's attention to an early-day motion that I tabled barely three weeks ago, with the support of hon. Members on both sides of the House. Early-day motion 1225, entitled "British shipping industry".
[That this House is alarmed by the continuing decline in the British Merchant Fleet which, if not reversed, will damage the United Kingdom economy and threaten defence; notes with concern the decline in officer cadet training and recruitment; calls upon Her Majesty's Government to encourage the employment of British seafarers, and renewal and expansion of the Merchant Fleet by introducing in the next budget, (a) 100 per cent. ship allowance for depreciation and extended rollover relief for the sale and purchase of ships, (b) income tax and national insurance contribution alleviation for each British seafarer employed and (c) a package of incentives which will remove the disadvantages suffered by the British shipping industry when comparison is made with incentives in most European countries, until such time as steps towards harmonisation in all European countries of state aids to the shipping industry commences, and to establish maritime enterprise zones in Great Britain and Northern Ireland.]
The motion was published today, with 191 signatures. As I have said, it was supported by hon. Members on both sides of the House.
I trust that, between now and the Budget, the Secretary of State will act within the Cabinet, and will seek to influence those who make decisions to implement my suggestions. There is no doubt that that would be advantageous. There will be employment opportunities for British seafarers and for the highly skilled shipbuilding work forces, both in Northern Ireland and in Great Britain. There will also be employment opportunities in all the allied areas of commerce associated with the British shipbuilding industry. I hope that the Secretary of State will initiate action and that the Government will be prepared to listen to their own supporters and to Opposition Members.
The Minister referred to the allocation of additional funds in the agriculture budget for the purpose of disease eradication. Although I welcome the Minister's commitment, and that of the Department of Agriculture, to maintaining the internationally recognised disease-free status of livestock in Northern Ireland, I am concerned about the number of tuberculosis cases which still arise, especially in self-contained herds which had been disease-free for many years.
Can the Minister expand on the reason for the allocation of this additional money and assure us that tuberculosis, brucellosis and bovine spongiform encephalopathy, as well as all the other diseases, are well under control? Is he absolutely satisfied that the suspicions, sincerely held by some farmers, that badgers may be a


source of TB and responsible for its spread are completely ill founded? What research is being done to clear up this matter once and for all?
I agree with what previous speakers said about the crisis that faces the potato industry and about the adverse effects of the decision to cut hill livestock compensatory allowances. I hope that the Minister will re-examine both issues after the debate.
I welcome the announcement of additional funding to reduce the time that patients have to wait for cardiac surgery. It will be a relief to those patients to have received an offer, even when they have to travel outside Northern Ireland for their operation and treatment, with all the attendant inconvenience and expense. Would it not make more sense, however, for an additional cardiac surgeon to be appointed so that money which goes out of Northern Ireland can be retained within it? It would help to sustain an already weak economy. Can the Minister confirm that delays in offering cardiac surgery are not in any way motivated by cost-benefit analysis of patients and by decisions being prioritised in such a way that some patients could die before they are able to obtain a life-extending operation?
I looked closely through the order and the other papers for an indication of specifically earmarked funds for roads in my constituency. I was disappointed not to find any provision for realignment of the B58 which runs from Carrickfergus to Ballynure. The road passed over a disused salt mine and was closed more than two years ago as a precaution after the collapse in 1990 of an abandoned salt mine in the Carrickfergus area. My constituents who have been affected by the road closure have been patient. They have suffered considerable inconvenience.
In June 1991 the then Minister, the hon. Member for Wiltshire, North, wrote to me to say:
Accordingly the DOE Roads Service has already prepared a contingency plan, including design and survey work for a realignment of the B58 road should it be found necessary not to reopen that road. As you will appreciate it would be imprudent to consider reopening the B58 road until the completion of the detailed investigatory work now proceeding and the analysis of the consultants interim report.
There was more correspondence the following year, and much correspondence in between and since, so it is disappointing that as yet no decision has been taken.
To the best of my knowledge, the reports have been completed. Measures costing more than £1 million are requested to realign the B58. I understand that a bid was made, but no funding is there for me to identify. Is the Minister in a position to say when the funding will be made available? When a road is closed, high priority should be given, once all the investigations have been carried out, to realigning it and reopening it. I hope that it will be given the priority that it deserves.
I must express disappointment that expenditure is not planned for the Larne-Belfast road until late 1997 or 1998, but at long last it is on the list. Larne, the second busiest ferry port in the United Kingdom, will finally have an upgraded road to and from the port. I hope that we shall all live to see it and will be able to be there when a Northern Ireland home-grown Minister performs the official opening ceremony.

Mr. Stott: A Labour Secretary of State.

Mr. Beggs: If the hon. Gentleman's party happens to be in power at the time, no doubt it will have taken steps to ensure that there will be a home-grown Northern Ireland Secretary of State in post.

Rev. Martin Smyth: Will my bon. Friend look again at the concept of home-grown? We are not thinking of an export, but of someone who is accountable to the electorate of Northern Ireland.

Mr. Beggs: I agree entirely with the remarks that my colleague has made. There is no doubt whatever as to what I meant.
I realise that many right hon. and hon. Members simply could not be here this evening, but I extend an invitation to them to come to Terrace Room B on 24 March, when they can have a cuppa or a little refreshment and an opportunity here within the precincts of the Palace to become better informed about the success and excellent standards that have been achieved at the port of Lame. I am sure that all our Scottish colleagues will seek to ensure that they have matching facilities on the Stranraer side.
So much for the commercial. Seriously, I want to thank personally all my colleagues from Northern Ireland, including district councillors and others, who have made representations to the Minister—and I thank the Minister himself for allowing a provision to be granted. Admittedly, it is a long-term provision, but at long last the upgrading of the busy road between Lame and Belfast is on the record. It is on the ladder, and now that it is there, although it is at the bottom, there is always the possibility of its moving up. That will be our next objective.
I make no apology for again asking the Minister to make an early decision to fund the relocation of the lime works at Glenarm in my constituency. The old lime works can be relocated behind the village, but at the moment it is a blight on that village and its continued presence prevents redevelopment at Glenarm, where there is high unemployment, and where real long-term secure employment could be provided by both public and private sector investment. I trust that that question will be considered seriously.
I realise that the Minister has been sitting in the Chamber for a long time and that many issues have been put to him. It would be unfortunate if he did not have the opportunity to respond to as many of those issues as possible and as fully as possible, so I shall finish my speech now.

Mr. Jamie Cann: I assure hon. Members that I want to make only a few remarks, and that I shall not take long. The Northern Ireland Office invited me to Northern Ireland at the end of last autumn. Having received the last rites with my family before setting off, as most Englishmen who had never been to Northern Ireland before would have done, I was surprised and pleased at the normality of the Province compared with what most of us would have expected to find. That included Belfast—although we did not go to all parts of the city.
I am pleased to speak tonight as an Englishman and to say that, in my very limited experience, the Northern Ireland Office and the Ministers responsible for our affairs in Northern Ireland are doing a good job. The way in which they allow council houses to be built over there, support industry and work with their local communities,


with the public and the private sector together, is admirable. I wish that we could import it over here. I suggest that the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland become the Prime Minister and that we send the Prime Minister to Northern Ireland.

Mr. Andrew Mackinlay: Is he one of us?

Mr. Cann: He may not be one of us, but he does a lot of good things. That is what I would say in response to what I understand is called a sedentary interruption.
I am an Englishman—or rather, I am mainly English and part Welsh. We are paying the bill for Northern Ireland. We know that we are. I find it a little disappointing that so few English, Welsh and Scottish Members are here tonight to discuss Northern Ireland. We all pay for it directly—and indirectly, day in and day out, through terrorism and the cost of security. Let us all take Northern Ireland far more seriously.

Mr. William O'Brien: This has been an interesting debate. Hon. Members representing the constituencies of Northern Ireland have dealt with a great many subjects that deserve an evening's debate for themselves. There is a need, for example, to debate local government in Northern Ireland because we should try to ensure that those people who serve in it have a right and proper place in our debates on that subject.
Housing and planning also deserve lengthy debate because they are important and many people depend on them. Health and social services are also important and could be debated for hours, because the quality of life of so many in Northern Ireland depends upon them. Congratulations must therefore be offered to all hon. Members from Northern Ireland because they have covered the broad services on which the people of Northern Ireland depend.
My hon. Friend the Member for Wigan (Mr. Stott) referred to the proposed privatisation of the electricity supply industry and the price rises that will result. Obviously that privatisation is not in the best interests of the Northern Ireland economy. The proposed privatisation of the water industry was also raised and the hon. Member for Antrim, South (Mr. Forsythe) said that it was one of the items in his tool bag. The hon. Member for South Down (Mr. McGrady) also expressed his concern about it. That subject is worthy of debate, and when the necessary legislation is brought forward I hope that we shall be able to debate it.
My main concern relates to chapter 7 on the environment in the lengthy document, "Expenditure Plans and Priorities for Northern Ireland". Chapter 9, which deals with health and social services, is also of significant interest because the quality of life of so many in Northern Ireland will be affected by the changes that will be initiated on 1 April relating to health provision and community care. The assessment of community care, the purchase of health care, targets and budgets will all have a bearing on the provision of services and thus the quality of life of the people of Northern Ireland. One could dwell for some time on those issues.
Because of the time constraint, I shall restrict my remarks to chapter 7 and the proposed privatisation of

water. On 18 June 1992 we had a debate on a Northern Ireland appropriation order and the Minister of State, the hon. Member for South Ribble (Mr. Atkins), said:
There is an excellent road network and an excellent supply of good, clean water. Some of my hon. Friends who represent constituencies in the south-east of England would be inordinately jealous of Northern Ireland's water supply" —[Official Report, 18 June 1992; Vol. 209, c. 1141.]
That is correct, and I think I see the Minister of State, the hon. Member for East Hampshire (Mr. Mates), nodding in assent. Why sell it? If it is so good and of so much value, there can be only one reason for the Government wanting to sell it: to present it as a gift to friends of the Conservatives.
Chapter 7 refers to water privatisation and highlights the failure of the Government to achieve their objective of establishing a Government-owned company prior to privatisation. The failure of that objective could prove expensive for us all, including the people of Northern Ireland.
We have no information about the capital value of the water services industry of Northern Ireland and no value has been placed on the water storage system there. Yet the Government are seriously considering disposing of the industry by a trade sale. In other words, it could be sold to an organisation or individual, not necessarily English or Irish—

Mr. Cann: Probably French.

Mr. O'Brien: My hon. Friend is right. It could go to a foreign organisation. By that means, we would lose that valuable Northern Ireland asset. If that procedure is followed and the asset is disposed of by a trade sale, the people of Northern Ireland will have been treated differently from the people of England and Wales, bearing in mind the sale of the 10 water authorities in 1989.

Mr. James Molyneaux: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman is being unduly pessimistic and is jumping the gun about water privatisation. Northern Ireland Ministers take the view that they cannot alter the structure of government in Northern Ireland. Nothing can be agreed until everything is agreed. They cannot, for example, alter the structure of the Department of the Environment by giving that section of the road-mending, pothole-filling powers of the Department to, say, local councils. So given that nothing can be agreed until everything is agreed, the Government are not likely to go on with water privatisation. Nor are they likely to proceed with the privatisation of electricity. Everything is bound up in the one formula.

Mr. O'Brien: I hope that the right hon. Gentleman is correct because I do not want the water services of Northern Ireland to be privatised. If it is true that nothing can be done until certain matters are in place, that will be a blessing for the people of the Province. But the track record of the Conservatives leads us to wonder whether they will again move the goalposts and change the rules to fit the situation in which they find themselves. I fear that if a good contributor to the Tory party wishes to purchase the water service industry of Northern Ireland, the transaction will go ahead.
It should be made clear that if that trade sale goes ahead —let us remember that it is part of the Tory manifesto —the people of Northern Ireland will have been treated differently from the people of England and Wales. In


England and Wales there was a flotation and people who intended or wished to purchase shares in water authorities in 1989 were entitled to do so. That was the Government's policy of extending the share-owning democracy, but that principle will not apply to Northern Ireland if the present proposals go ahead. One has to ask why we are treating people in Northern Ireland differently from those in England and Wales.
May I also draw attention to the fact that, when we look at the proposals in the document for a trade sale and compare that to the document published on the Scottish sale of water, we find that in Scotland there are options for the people. They suggest placing the services with the new unitary authorities, in other words, leaving them with local government. That should be considered for Northern Ireland. The Scottish document also suggests creating joint boards of new unitary authorities; in other words, keeping local elected representatives involved with the water supply industry. The document mentions a lead authority structure, which could be a local authority structure. So in Scotland there is a consultative document which is offering alternatives to the people of Scotland.
I say to the Minister that if we believe in fairness and want to demonstrate that Northern Ireland is part of the United Kingdom under the present set-up, the people there should be treated exactly the same as people in other parts of the United Kingdom.
What about the share-owning democracy in Northern Ireland? Can I take it that that no longer applies, or is it another Government U-turn on how to dispose of the water services in Northern Ireland? As I say, perhaps some organisations or individual will come along and the sale will go through without any reference to the people in the communities. Whatever the Government's proposals, there is a clear and precise message to the people of Northern Ireland, and a message from the people of Northern Ireland that has been expressed more than once tonight—that no one in Northern Ireland wishes the sale of the water service industry to any individual or organisation. The message from the people of Northern Ireland is clear, whether it is given to the Minister or any other person who goes there: they want to keep the water services industry in the public sector.

Mr. Beggs: I think that it is an appropriate time to reveal the secret of this little document that I have in my hand. [Interruption.] I am very pleased that all Northern Ireland elected representatives agree. We are confident that Members of the European Parliament of all parties, and elected councillors, will be supporting this short statement on water privatisation. We are simply saying:
We, the undersigned elected representatives at European, Westminster and local government level in Northern Ireland declare our opposition to any proposal to privatise water and sewerage services in Northern Ireland.
We call upon the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland to acknowledge and respect our opinion on this issue and not to proceed with water privatisation proposals against the wishes of the greater number of people living in Northern Ireland.
If the present Government, through the Secretary of State, are genuine in wishing to see co-operation between Unionists and constitutional Nationalists and people right across the Province, when we demonstrate, let us hope that he will be honourable and respond to the spirit of the representations made.

Mr. O'Brien: I support the sentiments that have been expressed by the hon. Gentleman. The views of the people of Northern Ireland and their representatives must be taken into account.
There is no support anywhere in Northern Ireland for privatisation. If the Secretary of State or any other Minister wishes to ensure that there is democracy in Northern Ireland, let him retain water services in public ownership and allow locally elected representatives to participate in the administration and running of those services. Local people also should be involved.
The build-up to the big sale and privatisation itself will mean hurt and hardship to people and businesses in Northern Ireland. No one will escape the price increases that will follow. Many people in the communities in Northern Ireland could suffer hardship.
I speak from experience in the area which I represent. There will be customer billing this year. Standing charges will be introduced, and unfairness will ensue. Water metering will be introduced. Pre-payment water metering is being considered by the Yorkshire water authority. If that system is introduced, those on low incomes who are already suffering hardship will have to endure further hardship. It has been said already that there is no alternative to water and that everyone needs water. Yet people will have to put a coin in a meter before they can have water. Such a system should not be introduced, but water authorities in England are talking about it. We know that if it is introduced in Yorkshire and other areas, it will be introduced in Northern Ireland.
Water services are provided by the Department of the Environment, which means that we can question Ministers. There may be a monopoly, but Ministers can be questioned. If water services are placed in private hands, we shall be unable to question anyone. There will be no competition in the privatised and monopolistic structure.
Families that are in need and face hardship will have their water supply disconnected. Over the past three years since privatisation, disconnections have increased five, six and seven fold. The people who are without water can ill afford to be in that position. Young families and others are facing hardship. Hardship will follow the privatisation of water services.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. Jeremy Hanley): Where does all this come in?

Mr. O'Brien: I am talking about what is happening in England and Wales now. Compulsory water metering was introduced to an area in my constituency. That is an example of the treatment that people will receive if the water industry in Northern Ireland is privatised.
A small business in the area that is covered by the Yorkshire water authority received a bill for water for the third quarter of 1992–93, which it paid a month ago. The charge for the water used was £1.04, but standing charges amounted to £34.89. That is the sort of charging that will take place in Northern Ireland if privatisation is allowed to go ahead. Small businesses will suffer. If there is privatisation, the cost of water will not reflect the value of the service that has been provided. Instead, it will be the price that people will have to pay. If the Minister feels that I am wrong, he can say, when he replies, that this situation will not apply, and I am prepared to accept that there will not be these charges.
My hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) has noted that there is an item under Department of the Environment about expenditure by the Department on water, sewerage and related services. I am making the point that water, sewerage and related services are in their programme for privatisation. I know that it is a subject which they do not want to discuss or hear about, but I have described the situation that applies at present in my own area and I am warning the people of Northern Ireland that they will have the same treatment. Indeed, perhaps that treatment will be worse than the treatment we are receiving now.
The small business area is one of the areas in which people who are having difficulty making ends meet could be pressed still further, because privatisation will mean that there is no relationship between charges and the services that are provided.
I therefore say to Northern Ireland Members that we must resist privatisation, because the first act of the new owner will be to dispense with quite a number of the work force by reducing the services that apply now. Then we will see that some Conservative Members will be appointed to the board of the new organisation. This happens so often with these industries that are sold and become a private monopoly. We will see jobs lost, massive salary increases for the people at the top and appointments for Conservative Members who vote for privatisation.
The same thing will apply with the privatisation or sale of the Belfast port. Here again, we will see a scheme whereby jobs will be cut and job opportunities will be lost, yet there will be an increase in salary for the people at the top and opportunities for people to join the board. Yet the harbour is working more efficiently than ever before. Even in this period of recession, there is an increase in trade through the port. So there is no justification whatsoever for the Government's privatising these efficient and worthwhile services in Northern Ireland.
The same is true of Belfast international airport. There is no justification for privatising its activities.
I will withdraw my comments if the Minister assures us that these services and businesses will not be privatised, but until we get that assurance, we have an obligation to fight to retain the jobs, services and businesses in Northern Ireland.
If the Government are sincere in their efforts to bring prosperity to Northern Ireland and do away with the divisions there, the best way to do that is to drop the privatisation programme, particularly for the water industry.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. Jeremy Hanley): I shall attempt, within the time available, to answer some of the points raised today, but clearly it would be impossible to answer every point raised. I have been listening throughout the debate, apart from a brief period of 15 minutes in the middle of the speech by the hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble); I apologise to him, but there was plenty both before I left and after I returned. I assure hon. Members that on issues which are specific to a particular Minister's responsibility, I will make that Minister aware of the points raised so that a full departmental reply may

be sent. It is still a tradition of debates on appropriation that I should answer as many points as I can within a reasonable time.

Mr. William Ross: rose—

Mr. Hanley: It is a little unfair of the hon. Gentleman to intervene so soon.

Mr. Ross: It is about the Minister's reply. He is well aware that anything that he says at the Dispatch Box will be recorded in Hansard and all hon. Members will be able to read it. If, however, a Minister replies to me but does not let all those who took part in the debate know what his reply is, hon. Members will be as much in the dark as ever, and we shall all have to put down lots of questions. Perhaps the Minister could ensure that all hon. Members get the same reply, albeit long.

Mr. Hanley: I remember well that in Committee the hon. Gentleman once stood up, after I had written to him a nine-page letter, and read the letter into the record so that his colleagues could see it. He could have done the same with a Xerox. I do not think that the House would bear with me if I were to follow him down that path. I understand his point, and I hope that any hon. Member who receives a letter as a result of the debate will show it to his colleagues.
Although Northern Ireland generally reflects the performance of the national economy, it is widely recognised that the Province has held up well in the face of adverse national and global economic conditions.
The hon. Member for Wigan (Mr. Stott), in his usual robust way, started off by talking about unemployment, which is indeed disappointingly high in Northern Ireland, and the state of the economy. With glee, the hon. Gentleman latched on the January report of Coopers and Lybrand. It is marvellous how, almost with delight, he leapt on that one report rather than any of the many other reports over the last few months, all of which have been positive, to try to exploit the negative. The Coopers and Lybrand report of December was also positive. No one should read one report and draw total conclusions therefrom. We should take a series of reports and look at the statistics over a period of months.
In the year to September 1992, there was a 1 per cent. decrease in local employment compared with a 3.3 per cent. fall nationally, and over the year unemployment showed an increase of 3,200 to 14.6 per cent. of the work force—a rise of only 0.4 per cent. compared with 1.4 per cent. in the United Kingdom as a whole.
The deterioration in Northern Ireland's principal economic variables began later and has been less pronounced than for the rest of the United Kingdom. In addition, output in the United Kingdom for the third quarter of 1992 fell by 0.6 per cent. but the corresponding figure for Northern Ireland rose by 1.8 per cent. It is therefore no surprise to learn that recent independent surveys, in addition to those mentioned by the hon. Member for Wigan, have recorded a marked improvement in confidence among the Province's business community. While none of us can afford to be complacent in the present harsh environment, those indicators provide solid evidence of the resilience not only of the Northern Ireland economy but of the people who work and live in it.
The Government are not complacent. For example, we have committed £450 million to the Department of


Economic Development in the current financial year to be used directly and indirectly to assist Northern Ireland's economy. It is encouraging that the increase in the seasonally adjusted figure for Northern Ireland still shows an average decline of only 200 over the last three months.
There is particularly good news on the investment front. Since 1988, a total of over 6,800 jobs have been provided through inward investment. I am grateful for the contribution of hon. Members from all parties in Northern Ireland to that. Pan European Textiles is the latest and brightest spark in that story. The key to the future of Northern Ireland is the same as the key for the United Kingdom as a whole. It is to have competitive companies able to meet the needs of the market place. Northern Ireland is in a good position to achieve that.

Mr. Cann: With Government help.

Mr. Hanley: The hon. Gentleman says, "With Government help.". That is what I have just been saying.
Economic growth in Northern Ireland is very good indeed. Northern Ireland experienced nine consecutive years of sustained economic growth—the period 1981–90. That matches what happened at national level. Over the year to September 1992, the outputs of the Northern Ireland production industry and manufacturing industry rose by 2 per cent. and 1 per cent. respectively. The comparable figures for the United Kingdom as a whole declined by 1 per cent. in both case. As Northern Ireland's manufacturing output over the past five years has risen by 16 per cent., and as the output of the production industries has increased by the same magnitude, growth in the Province compares very favourably with what has happened at national level.
The hon. Member for Wigan raised a number of issues. I do not have time to deal with some of his more general questions, such as the one concerning the abolition of the wages councils. The argument in Northern Ireland is the same as the argument here: we believe that wages councils distorted the working of the labour market and that their abolition should help to create conditions in which the economy can grow and jobs can be created.
The hon. Gentleman said that there was absolutely no co-operation with the Northern Ireland Co-operative Development Agency. In fact, the Department of Economic Development has given financial support to the Co-operative Development Agency since its inception. In the current year it has provided more than £200,000. The prolonged, seven-year, pilot project is due to finish on 31 March 1993.

Mr. McNamara: Will the Government keep it going?

Mr. Hanley: If the hon. Gentleman allows me to proceed, he will get an answer to his question.
Officials of the Department of Economic Development have been discussing NICDA's future role with representatives of the agency. It has been agreed that the agency should become a more broadly based community economic development organisation, while retaining its focus on co-operative development. Detailed discussions on the future funding of NICDA are ongoing.
The hon. Member for Wigan raised the question of education reforms. I do not think that anyone, apart: from teachers themselves, has been quite so personally involved with the education reforms as I have been. The hon. Gentleman said that I had not consulted teachers. In fact,

I have met many, many teachers over the past few months. As one hon. Member was kind enough to say today, I am a listening Minister. I hope very much that I have not only listened but also acted upon what I have heard. That is why I have made a number of statements about slowing down the pace of change. There is no question of my having made some sort of U-turn. There are always people who gleefully make that charge. I have acted in response to people who do not believe that the Government listen, who do not believe that the Government tailor reforms to meet the demands of those who have to implement new systems.
We shall continue to listen carefully to people's views on the progress of changes. Of course, if people co-operate by trying changes and actually working new systems, we shall learn all the more and be able to make changes to meet the needs not only of teachers but also of children. I expect that once the new requirements become established as part of the normal education provision, the pressures will ease considerably. I am very grateful for the efforts of teachers in Northern Ireland. Many of them are trying very hard indeed because they understand that what we are doing is for the benefit of the children.

Mr. Stott: I hear what the hon. Gentleman is saying. He inherited the problem that his predecessor, the hon. Member for Peterborough (Dr. Mawhinney), created, I fully acknowledge that the current Minister has listened to teachers and has slowed down the pace of education reform in Northern Ireland. My point is simply that when the education reform legislation went through this House three years ago, with the former Minister at the Dispatch Box, every Northern Ireland Member told the Minister that the proposals would not work, that they were totally unacceptable. I said so from this Dispatch Box. We managed to unite all the Northern Ireland parties in opposition to the proposals. In future, the Government should listen to what the people say before provisions are enacted. I am not blaming the current Minister; I am blaming the previous Minister.

Mr. Hanley: The hon. Gentleman is being less than fair to my predecessor, my hon. Friend the Member for Peterborough (Dr. Mawhinney). He has forgotten that my hon. Friend said that the reforms would be introduced by way of a pilot from which we would learn, that we would consult widely and introduce changes if necessary. The hon. Gentleman remembers only the block of concrete, not the sculpture which has since emerged from it. Every day sees refinements, turning the image into one that people will admire.
The hon. Member for Londonderry, East (Mr. Ross) referred, along with others, to assistance to potato growers in Northern Ireland. It should be remembered that potato guarantee arrangements are still in place. They have not been triggered because the cumulative average price of ware potatoes sold for human consumption is still well above the target price of £46 per tonne. We have not yet broken the £46 per tonne limit. Unless there is a significant fall in prices, it is unlikely that the guarantee arrangements —the stock feed scheme as it has been called—will be triggered.
Problems caused by the weather are, as we all know, a risk that farmers take. The weather in Northern Ireland can be severe, but it can also be extremely pleasant. The


Government cannot be expected to cover the cost of any losses caused by the weather. The trigger mechanism is there to help, should it be required—and that we stand by.

Mr. William Ross: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Hanley: I should be grateful if the hon. Gentleman did not intervene; otherwise, I shall not get to the end of my speech.

Mr. Ross: That is a pity, because I was talking about seed potatoes—not potato stock.

Mr. Hanley: In that case, my noble Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food will write to the hon. Gentleman on that point.
The hon. Gentleman also referred to hill livestock compensatory allowances, on which we had an enjoyable early morning debate two days ago. Several hon. Members have said that they were deeply offended not to be called in that debate but, as was pointed out, it related purely to Great Britain. Therefore, I am glad that some hon. Members took the opportunity to raise the subject today.
I acknowledge the concern about the reduction of HLCAs for hill sheep, but we cannot ignore the fact that the incomes of mixed livestock farms in Northern Ireland's less-favoured areas have improved substantially, albeit from a dismally low base, for a second successive year. I know that there are people who refuse to recognise that improvements have occurred, but no one has queried the statistics which have been collected in the past, so I hope that they will believe them now.
Hill livestock compensatory allowances are a form of income support, and at this time of financial stringency for the economy as a whole, the Government could not ignore those factors in deciding the rates for 1993. Nor could we ignore the ewe premium. One hon. Member said that we should be talking only about HLCAs and not about the other forms of support, but that is wrong. Most sheep in Northern Ireland are in the less-favoured areas and will receive not only a higher ewe premium but the special LFA supplement which has increased from £3.12 to £6.57 per ewe.
The average net farm income in the severely disadvantaged areas in the LFA, those affected by the HLCA reduction, is estimated to have increased by 70 per cent. in the last year in Northern Ireland. Admittedly, that is from £4,000 to £6,800, which is not great, but it is nevertheless an increase. Those affected by the HLCA reduction will get relief as a result of the general rise in support rates resulting from recent green pound devaluations–18 per cent. and 3 per cent.—and they will benefit from the much higher ewe premium for 1992 and the increased LFA supplement.
Therefore, total support per hardy breed ewe in the severely disadvantaged areas will be £34.45 compared with £32 in 1991. Many farmers will also benefit from the higher suckler cow premium. Hon. Members will know that many sheep farmers are also suckler cow farmers and so will gain from the extension of the environmentally sensitive areas, particularly in County Antrim and County Fermanagh where the extensions have taken place. Therefore, total support for hill livestock farmers in Northern Ireland is growing. Through HLCAs, ewe premiums and suckler

cow premiums the total support will be around £65 million in 1992, which is an increase of some £8 million on the previous year. The suckler cow premium is also guaranteed to increase over the next three years. That commitment by the Government should be acceptable.
HLCAs cannot be considered in total isolation. Some 70 per cent. of farms in the LFA have some additional source of income. I admire people who manage to earn other money if they can, but of course there are social security payments and pensions. Some farmers find that the average off-farm income is estimated at around £5,000 per annum. That is not for everyone, but if hon. Members looked at the total support rather than one line within that support, they might sing a different song.
The hon. Member for Londonderry, East also asked about assistance for invention. I shall ask my hon. Friend the Minister of State to write to him about that.
The hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson) complained about the lack of scrutiny of Northern Ireland business and mentioned a plea which has been entered by many today. The hon. Members for Belfast, South (Rev. Martin Smyth) and for Antrim, South (Mr. Forsythe), who are both distinguished members of Select Committees, have shown not only that Northern Ireland politicians are capable of being selected for Select Committees in the House, but that those Select Committees can deal with matters which cover Northern Ireland business. It is therefore an exaggeration to suggest that Departments for which we are responsible are not subject to parliamentary scrutiny. They are certainly capable of that.
Many hon. Members, including the hon. Member for Belfast, East, mentioned financial provision for roads. Investments in roads and related facilities continue to run at a significant level. Maintenance, which accounts for about half the roads budget, remains the top functional priority, but within the budget increased emphasis is being placed on minor works and on bridge improvement and maintenance schemes to ensure that the most effective use is made of the existing network and that roads are as safe as possible.
I regret very much that there is no extra money to spend on new roads, more schools, sporting facilities and everything else that has been mentioned today, but if hon. Members add up the shopping list that has been given us today, it is probably four or five times greater than the variable shopping list that we are able to expend in a year. That does not mean that the cases have not been proved, but simply that we have to cut our cloth accordingly.
Road infrastructure schemes can be promoted only to the extent that financial resources permit. That is one of the reasons we regret the postponement of road works on housing developments in the constituency of the hon. Member for Belfast, East. We recognise that the rescheduling of the major works programme had an unfortunate effect on certain developments in his constituency, but the situation is being kept under close review and the Minister of State will write to him about it.
The hon. Member for Belfast, East mentioned pump-priming funds for the National Sports Training Centre. We had a meeting and we are considering his representations. I understand his point that a contribution from the Government could help to unlock resources from elsewhere.
The hon. Member for South Down (Mr. McGrady) had to leave to catch a plane earlier and asked that his


apologies be given to the House. He mentioned industrial development in his constituency and accepted from me that we would write to him rather than deal with the matter now.
The hon. Member for Mid-Ulster (Rev. William McCrea) criticised waiting times in the health service. When I was the Minister responsible for health in Northern Ireland, I helped to create the waiting list initiative in September 1991 and we made additional funds of £1·2 million available to the boards in 1991–92 to reduce what I regarded as unacceptably long waiting lists—far worse than in other parts of the United Kingdom. In 1992–93 a further £1 million was provided, and that was repeated for 1993–94.
Since that initiative was launched, the number waiting more than two years has reduced from almost 5,000 to one third that figure. We managed to provide an extra cardiac surgeon for bypass and other operations, at a cost of £1 million. The number of operations increased from 630 to 840 and over two years the waiting list fell from 400 to today's figure of 170. As I said at Question Time this afternoon, my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State has just authorised an additional £2·75 million for 1993–94, which should help to wipe out the waiting list. There is no attitude to the effect that a person who has to wait a long time may die and therefore come off the list. That is a despicable suggestion and one that I utterly refute.
The reforms are not a cost-cutting exercise. The money saved is put back into patient care—and that goes for education reforms as well.
Obstetrics were mentioned by a number of hon. Members. The Select Committee report basically said that many mothers wanted to choose home birth. While being cautious about that change, we recognise the need for a more flexible application of existing policies. A number of studies have been announced and are under way, and Northern Ireland is included in those initiatives.

Rev. William McCrea: The Government's reaction to that report came after the Western board's decision. Will the Government ask the board to wait and to reconsider its decision in the light of the Government's promise?

Mr. Hanley: I will draw the hon. Gentleman's words to the attention of my noble Friend the Minister and ask him to contact the hon. Gentleman as a matter of urgency. I know that my noble Friend is giving great consideration to that matter, as is my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State.
The hon. Member for South Down said that the Housing Executive's public expenditure allocation will be cut by £73 million over the next three years. I want to make it clear to all right hon. and hon. Members that that is not at all true. It was the executive's bid which was cut—and that is very different. If a body puts in a bid and it is not met, it is because competing priorities have meant that there is a difference between the figure sought and that which was affordable. That is not a cut. I will write to the hon. Member for Mid-Ulster about lignite.
I am sorry that I missed part of the speech of the hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble). As to the health review, I mentioned during Question Time the document "Making Choices". The hon. Gentleman mentioned the Banbridge night club, Circus Circus—a most attractive location of which I was ignorant before tonight. It was

drawn to my attention by the Minister of State, my hon. Friend the Member for East Hampshire (Mr. Mates), with a light in his eye. With a look of John Travolta, he told me the story. My hon. Friend the Minister said that he was particularly sympathetic to the hon. Gentleman's argument, and gave a pledge that he would draw it to the attention of the other Minister of State, my hon. Friend the Member for South Ribble (Mr. Atkins). We will consider the hon. Gentleman's comments carefully.
I thoroughly agree with the need for Lough Neagh rescue. We must look properly at that case, and I will do so.
As to appointments to boards and quangos, we value the opinions of anyone in respect of suitable candidates. If any hon. Members of Northern Ireland parties or of other parties—such as Labour, which does not stand in Northern Ireland—want to suggest names, we shall consider them most carefully. However, we will give no guarantees to anyone that such nominees will be appointed by right. That right does not exist. I hope that members of Northern Ireland parties will submit a wide range of names. In particular, I could do with a few more women on public bodies. I should be grateful if the lists reflected modern needs.
The question of residents' parking schemes is being considered now. Project 2000 is widely welcomed, but I cannot give a breakdown of the costs tonight. My hon. Friend the Member for Staffordshire, South-East (Mr. Lightbown)—the Government Whip, who is sitting on my right—is becoming slightly impatient, but then he needs his beauty sleep; in fact, it looks as though he could do with three or four days of it.
My noble Friend the health Minister will write to the hon. Member for Belfast, South about the Peto institute and the Buddy Bear trust. We shall also write to him about the Independent Living Foundation, which is making very good progress.
The hon. Member for Antrim, South (Mr. Forsythe) mentioned a report by Coopers and Lybrand about the airport. That report was not made because of the privatisation; it was an efficiency report, which should be seen in isolation from any possible privatisation of the airport.
I was amazed by what was said by the hon. Member for Normanton (Mr. O'Brien). He said that if the Government did not do what he said we were going to do, that would constitute a Government U-turn. It seems that we now have a new definition of a Government U-turn: it is what happens when the Government do not do what the hon. Member for Normanton said that they were going to do. I am afraid that the hon. Gentleman was trying to whip up fears where they should not exist. We are looking at all the options.

Mr. O'Brien: I said earlier that, if the Minister did not agree with what I said, he should come forward. If he is saying that what I said about the consequences of water privatisation is not true, I am prepared to withdraw my remarks; if it is true, however, I hope that the Minister will do something about it.

Mr. Hanley: The hon. Gentleman invited me to refute what he had said, and I am taking him up on his invitation. What he cited is not the policy that has been decided for Northern Ireland as of now; we are out for consultation


and, so far, no decisions have been made. In saying that decisions have been made, the hon. Gentleman is clearly wrong.
I can tell the hon. Member for Antrim, South that great progress has been made on the disability living allowance.
I conclude with two short statements. First, I wish to apologise for my failure to cover any matters with which I have not dealt in my brief response. I know that a number of issues are involved. Secondly, I thank the hon. Member for Ipswich (Mr. Cann) for his contribution, brief though it was. He and the hon. Member for Thurrock (Mr. Mackinlay) visited Northern Ireland recently, and showed great interest. I hope that many other hon. Members will show the same interest—not a patronising interest, not a wish to go and gawp at how these strange people manage to eke out an existence, but a wish to look at a part of the United Kingdom, and to find out how people live courageously in difficult circumstances in an area where there is deprivation. Of course such deprivation exists in other parts of the United Kingdom, but the problems of Northern Ireland add to the difficulties. I know that those hon. Members appreciated the beauty that is Northern Ireland, and the 1.5 million hospitable and friendly people who represent the real Northern Ireland—not the 600 or 700 swine who ruin it for all the rest of us.

Rev. Martin Smyth: The Minister paid tribute to hon. Members who visited Northern Ireland and took an interest in it. He said that the debate which took place the other night dealt with Great Britain. I do not think that that was necessarily a reason for excluding Northern Ireland Members who wanted to participate in a debate concerning their future.

Mr. Hanley: I thoroughly agree with the hon. Gentleman. I greatly regret that Northern Ireland did not feature in the debate. I was merely stating a fact—that the prayer against that order was a prayer against an order

affecting Great Britain only. Although it had a complete read-across, I think that it was wrong that Northern Ireland Members did not have the opportunity to take part in the debate. That is why I took the opportunity today to state that I was grateful that Northern Ireland Members had taken this opportunity—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Geoffrey Lofthouse): Order. The Minister is getting very close to criticising the Chair. The Chair decides who takes part in debates.

Mr. Hanley: In no way, Mr. Deputy Speaker, am I saying that I criticise the Chair for not drawing in Northern Ireland Members. What I am saying is that Northern Ireland Members could not take part in the debate because the debate was on Great Britain alone, not on Northern Ireland. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why?"] Because it was a limited debate, it may have been felt that they did not have a chance to contribute.
I am grateful that Northern Ireland Members took the opportunity today to catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and that therefore they used the time, which just happened not to be available to them the other day, in a most constructive way.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,
That the draft Appropriation (Northern Ireland) Order 1993, which was laid before this House on 15th February, be approved.

Statutory Instruments, &c.

Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 101(5) (Standing Committees on Statutory Instruments, &amp;c.).

JUDGES (NORTHERN IRELAND)

That the draft Maximum Number of Judges (Northern Ireland) Order 1993, which was laid before this House on 21st January, be approved.—[Mr. Wood.]

Question agreed to.

M25 (Widening)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Wood.]

Mr. Peter Ainsworth: I wish to raise a matter that is of considerable and growing concern not only to my constituents in Surrey, East but to people throughout Surrey and the whole of the south-eastern region whose homes, towns, villages, fields and woodlands are close to the M25.
Although it is in Surrey that the Department of Transport's proposals are at present most keenly felt, since it is in Surrey that the link roads proposal has its being and in Surrey that the fourth lane proposals are at their most advanced, this subject clearly raises issues that have implications reaching far beyond the confines of a single county and touch on matters of national, and even international, interest.
I know that the Minister will believe me when I say that I am not anti-cars or anti-roads and road building. It would be the height of folly simply to ignore the central role that roads presently play in the economic and social life of the country. We depend upon an efficient, fast and smooth-flowing transport infrastructure for the goods and services that we have come to expect, at the prices that we demand. The M25, which represents some 6 per cent. of the national and motorway network but which carries some 15 per cent. of the total motorway volume, has a key role to play.
It is undeniable, too, that there have been considerable benefits from the development of motorways in the past to towns and villages whose high streets were previously choked with traffic. I am well aware, for example, that the opening of the M25 in the area covered by my constituency led to falls of up to 75 per cent. in traffic volumes on the A25 which passes through a number of villages nearby. I am also well aware that the M25 is a heavily congested road—the most heavily congested road in the country—and that, with demand for private car use expected to continue to rise, it is likely to become more congested. In these circumstances, to take no action at all is simply not an option.
The chief issue that I wish to raise is whether the action proposed by the Department of Transport—in brief, to widen the M25 by a further six lanes by way of link roads between junctions 12 and 15, and to increase capacity on 80 per cent. of the remaining motorway by the addition of a fourth lane—represents the right action. In order to achieve the right answer, it is crucial that we ask the right questons. It must be open to doubt whether, in fact, for many years the Department of Transport has been doing that.
If the question is simply how do we ease traffic congestion on the M25, it prompts the equally simple answer: we widen it. But even within its own very limited ambit, is that answer really satisfactory? We all know what happens when an existing road is widened or a relief road is built. All too often, that road simply fills up. A few years later—I was going to say "down the road"—the problem has not been solved. It has simply been enlarged.
I submit to the Minister that the key question he faces and, indeed, we all face, is how to reconcile the apparently ever-rising demand for private car use with the damage that cars are known to do to the environment and are

believed to do to health. Until that question is resolved, important aspects of transport, environment and health policy will remain which cannot be reconciled.
I will not pretend that this is not a hugely complex problem for the Minister. My chief criticism of the solution currently proposed by the Department of Transport is that it is too simple. It is also out of date. I do not wish to imply any criticism of my hon. Friend. Successive Governments have followed a demand-led transport investment policy since the end of world war 1, when the Ministry of Roads was originally established. It is at least arguable that that policy no longer represents, if it ever did, an adequate response to a problem the aspects of which have multiplied over the years.
A demand-led approach begins by building a six-lane motorway, in a few years moves to an eight-lane motorway, and not long afterwards recommends, as is now the case with junctions 12 to 15 of the M25, a 14-lane motorway.

Mrs. Cheryl Gillan: Does my hon. Friend agree that, when the number of motorway lanes is increased to perhaps four, six or 10, the enhanced reputation of the road and increased circulation thereof leads to greater usage? So by increasing the number of lanes, we may face the problem of increased usage of the motorway, which could enhance the problem.

Mr. Ainsworth: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that intervention. We certainly need to consider carefully the issue of created traffic, which is the problem to which she refers.
What happens when the capacity envisaged under the proposals for junctions 12 to 15 of the M25 fills up? Do we enlarge again and again? We are talking about a road on green belt land. My hon. Friend will undoubtedly share my view that no Government in our history have done more to protect and enhance the environment and to encourage sustainable economic development and the protection of our natural heritage. For example, the size of the green belt has doubled in recent years.
However, I hope that the Minister will understand me when I say that there is at least something perverse about a system which can make it extraordinarily difficult to build a modest home extension yet enable the construction of a 14-lane highway in the next-door field, albeit following an environmental assessment.
The Surrey Wildlife Trust has estimated that the addition of link roads between junctions 12 and 15 of the M25 would destroy 23 designated sites of special scientific interest. In my constituency, where I am assured that link roads are not presently under active consideration, the same body has identified no fewer than 10 designated areas of outstanding natural beauty and two sites of special scientific interest which it says would be adversely affected by the development of the M25.
The Minister may be aware that the Prince of Wales, as patron of the Royal Society for Nature Conservation, last summer urged people to challenge new road schemes—not to mention so-called improvements—that fail to take account of long-term considerations. It is hard to think of any consideration which is more long-term than the preservation of the natural environment which our generation will hand down to its children.
Nor is the impact of road building visual alone. The internal combustion engine is responsible for 30 per cent.


of all the energy we consume in the United Kingdom. Road traffic produces 85 per cent. of the United Kingdom's carbon monoxide emissions, 48 per cent. of nitrogen oxide emissions and some 19 per cent.—over 100,000,000 tonnes a year—of the greenhouse gas, carbon dioxide.
My hon. Friend will be aware of the concern increasingly being expressed about the effects that vehicle exhaust pollutants are having on human health. The matter was first taken up with Ministers in connection with my constituency by my predecessor, Lord Howe.
A survey recently conducted by a school in Bletchingley found that 40 of the 161 children whose families responded —about 25 per cent.—were suffering from some form of respiratory disorder. Thirty-six were regular users of inhalers. Inevitably, because Bletchingley is close to the M25, and also near the M23, the finger of blame has been levelled at motorway pollution.
The local health authority has been persuaded to take the matter up, and once we have scientifically established the facts, we can hope to begin to examine the causes of the problem. It is true that no absolute causal link has yet been formally accepted between vehicle exhaust and ill health. It would be inappropriate to leap to premature conclusions, as some have done—I am afraid that it is open season for scaremongering—but it does not take a PhD in chemistry to work out that what comes out of the back end of a car is bad for people.
I hope that my hon. Friend will understand that, against the background that I have described, it is not unnatural for people whose homes are around the M25 to express anxiety at his proposals to increase the capacity of the road.
A further aspect of concern has been considered by several hon. Members whose constituencies are affected, and also by local authorities. The view has been eloquently expressed by the district council, Surrey county council, the South-East Regional Planning Committee and others that the plans for link roads conflict with the overall regional strategy which they have been at pains to develop under the aegis of the Department of the Environment.
It seems reasonable to ask whether proposals substantially to increase the capacity of the motorway, which have undeniably important implications for regional strategy, should be developed in apparent isolation. One of the chief criticisms advanced is that the current proposals are being introduced on a piecemeal basis. My hon. Friend will be familiar with that argument. That may be the easiest method for the Department of Transport, but is it really the right method?
Is it not true that, especially as it is an orbital road, decisions taken regarding any one stretch of the motorway have repercussions on other stretches? Is there not a compelling case for the Department to introduce its proposals for the motorway as a whole? Inevitably, decisions are being taken on various parts of the road, and, as that happens, the options for the remaining parts of the road are closing down.
I hope that I have been able to convey to my hon. Friend some idea of how keenly my constituents feel the problem, and of the multi-faceted complexity of the problem that we all face. It would be surprising indeed if such a set of problems gave rise to a simple solution; the

plain fact is that they do not. It is certainly not a solution simply to stop building and widening roads such as the M25 altogether, as some have suggested, but nor should the addition of a fourth lane be seen as a solution in its own right.
Incidentally, that prospect needs to be carefully examined from a safety point of view, and I should welcome any reassurance that my hon. Friend can give me about it. The link roads seem to me so excessive that they do not constitute a contribution to the search for a solution at all.
Just as we face a combination of problems, so we need a combination of responses. First, we need to be reassured that enough is being done to manage the traffic on the motorway and maximise the road's efficiency and existing capacity. That means much greater use of high-technology traffic management systems in order further to reduce the risk of accidents, which, together with road works, are a primary cause of congestion. The Department has recognised the importance of devices such as automatic incident detection monitors, and I hope that we shall see many more of those.
Variable speed limits and variable message signs are also welcome, although they are rather scarce at present. I hope that it will be possible to do much more to control future levels of demand. I welcome the research that my hon. Friend is now undertaking into that.
There is, of course, a need for caution. If road pricing were applied crudely to the motorway, it could simply drive traffic back on to the surrounding roads. A flexible system of road pricing—related, for example, to the time of journeys and distance travelled—could usefully spread the flow of traffic. It could reduce congestion at the busiest times and encourage local drivers, on local journeys, to use local roads rather than to junction-hop as they do now.
Greater co-ordination is required between the Department of Transport and regional and local planners. They have, after all, a common aim in maintaining and improving the quality of life.
Public transport options need to be carefully considered and further upgraded as part of an overall package aimed at maintaining necessary mobility while cutting down on unnecessary journeys. Investment in public transport alone cannot constitute an answer to the problem, as some maintain. In addition, we need to harness scientific development as a vital ally. In that regard, there is considerable scope for optimism. Cars are becoming cleaner and quieter, and road surfaces are also improving. I know that my hon. Friend takes a keen interest in the extension of quieter, porous surfaces.
We have a duty to ensure that enough encouragement is given to motor manufacturers to speed up the introduction of a more friendly product, whether it is developed from internal combustion or from some other form of energy source.
None of the ideas, individually, represents a solution. A combination of them may well add up to the solution we are seeking. I know that my hon. Friend has some very much in mind. The trouble is that, as the link road concept shows all too plainly, I fear, those ideas are not being given sufficient priority when we get to policy implementation.
By focusing too narrowly on the problem of traffic congestion, the Department of Transport is in the process of delivering what I fear will be a doomed solution, for which future generations are unlikely to thank us.

The Minister for Roads and Traffic (Mr. Kenneth Carlisle): I am glad that my hon. Friend the Member for Surrey, East (Mr. Ainsworth) secured this debate. I have been very impressed by the way in which my hon. Friend, in his short time in the House, has brought his concern about his constituency and its road problems to me, and the fervour with which he has protected his constituents' interests. I was greatly impressed by the scope of his speech tonight, which shows the depth of thought that he has given to the problem. I am also glad to see here my hon. Friend the Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs. Gillan), whose constituency is also next to the M25.
My hon. Friend the Member for Surrey, East raised many aspects of road policy and sketched on a broad canvas. I should very much like to have the time to go into all the philosophical and practical points that he raised, but I believe that it would be more helpful if I stuck to the M25. I hope that my hon. Friend will understand.
The facts are clear. The M25, which is a very important road, has become our most heavily used road since its construction in 1986. It is carrying far more traffic than was forecast when it was planned and, as we know, suffers particularly from serious congestion at peak times. Nevertheless, as my hon. Friend said, that road has brought significant relief to nearby towns and villages, and it has succeeded in its objective of taking through traffic out of London. The motorway has already been subject to some improvements to widen it to tackle some of the worst congestion, but, of course, more needs to be done.
I should emphasise that a good M25, free from congestion, is important not only to London traffic, but to the whole country. I receive representations from the midlands, the north and even Scotland from people who wish to export their goods. They are suffering because of congestion on the M25, so we have a duty to see that traffic flows well around it, for the benefit not only of London, but of the country.
There has been a great deal of consultation about, and study of, the M25 corridor. In 1988, consultants were commissioned to look at the options for the future of the M25. In July 1989, they reported, and rightly said that many sections of the motorway were already congested at peak times—as we already knew, from the "Today" programme and other sources, including from my own experience—and they estimated that traffic would grow substantially, and would nearly double, by 2007. They said that we would have to do something to relieve congestion in the future.
In December 1990, we published our M25 action plan, and the present proposals stem from that plan and our conclusions on it. We announced in September 1991 our measures for widening to dual four lanes within the existing boundaries, together with improving capacity by various traffic management measures on various sections of the M25.
Plans for widening to dual four-lane carriageways within the highway boundary do not affect the sections between junctions 11 and 15, which are already dual four-lane, or the sections south of junction 28 to junction 5, which have improved following the opening of the bridge over the Thames at Dartford.
We were satisfied then, as we are now, that the work of widening to four lanes is urgently needed to relieve congestion on the motorway, and our aim is to ensure that

80 per cent. of the M25 is dual four lanes within about six years. We can do that without taking more land. While doing it, we can take measures to mitigate the effects of the widened motorway, and in some cases we can make improvements by using new techniques.

Mrs. Gillan: rose—

Mr. Carlisle: I will not give way. I wish to answer my hon. Friend's points, and little time remains.
The first scheme between junctions 15 and 16 started in January and, as with all improvements, an environmental statement concerning the scheme was published in 1991. Our decision to proceed with the widening was taken in March last year, after considering the comments and submissions that had been put forward. The work between junctions 15 and 16 to improve to four lanes will now take less than four years.
The Secretary of State announced to the House on 4 February that he was authorising the start of construction in the coming financial year of 41 new road schemes. Those included two schemes on the M25 to add a fourth lane along about eight miles between junctions 7 and 8, bordering my hon. Friend's constituency, and between junctions 10 and 11. We expect to publish the environmental statement for the section bordering his constituency within the next month.
As widening work within the highway continues, time will be allowed between the contracts to prevent a build-up of roadworks and to prevent congestion. We shall manage those works carefully—this is important for my hon. Friend's constituents and those who use the road—to minimise delays.
As well as widening work, we aim, as my hon. Friend desires, to get maximum capacity out of the space that is available. Such measures include improving traffic flow on and off the motorway at junctions by traffic signals, by upgrading lighting and by better signs and signals. Variable message signs, which have an important role to play in the future, have already been installed between junctions 10 and 12, and others will follow elsewhere. By that means, information is given about hazards such as fog and incidents that cause queuing and jams.
Those improvements, together with the widening work, will significantly improve conditions for drivers on the M25 and communities near the motorway, including communities in my hon. Friend's constituency. It is worth emphasising that it is hugely important for those communities beside the road that we have a congestion-free M25. If it becomes congested, traffic will flow from it, through the towns and villages of my hon. Friend's constituency, as it will have to do. Also, as he says, some of his communities have relief of three quarters of their traffic because of the existence of the M25.
We are hoping to improve the M25 along its length within existing boundaries. My hon. Friend mentioned the link roads. We are proposing them between junctions 12 and 15, on the most congested part of the road, which carries about 200,000 vehicles a day. The link roads are truly needed if we are to cope with that traffic. One advantage of them is that they are on the existing route. We are not building a new route out into open green countryside, but are using an existing traffic route. That is very important. Those roads will cope with local traffic. Two thirds of the traffic which goes down that section is local. Two thirds comes on at the M3 and goes off at or


before the M4. The centre of the road will carry the through traffic, and this increased capacity will relieve local communities.
It is important, in the short time available, that I talk about the environment. It is important that these roads fit in with the environment, and one way in which we seek to do that is first to consult very carefully. One purpose of consultation is to get the views of local people, and wider views about the road. On the link road, we have gone out to consultation and put forward the various proposals and we listen carefully.
It is when we come to the order publication stage that we provide much fuller detail, because it is at that stage that we have to go before a public inquiry and an independent inspector. All views are welcome, and we listen carefully to those views. The inspector listens carefully. He does not always agree with the Department: he sometimes turns us down. That is a good thing. He is an independent inspector, and will at all times listen to the views of my hon. Friend's constituents and to those of my hon. Friend.
Apart from the link roads, we have no commitment to provide further capacity beyond widening to dual four-lane on other sections of the M25. We would not do so unless we could find acceptable ways of doing it.
The M25 is not just a single route. The length between the M3 and the M43 is very much a local road. One has to look at each section separately. There may be a different solution for each section. We have to look at the needs of

each section; we have to consult and to provide thorough environmental statements. We take great care to avoid sites of special scientific interest wherever we can. They are a major constraint. If we have to touch an SSSI, we try to provide some other benefit elsewhere.
We listen to all representations very carefully; take into account all new methods of managing traffic, as my hon. Friend wanted; and look at ways of mitigating the problems caused by the road. There is great scope for reducing the noise the road causes. A wider road, by theuse of porous asphalt, can become quieter. There is much better landscaping of these roads now, and we provide new environmental barriers. With new techniques, we can hope to improve the condition of roads substantially.
We have to accept that we cannot just accept continuing growth in traffic. In the M25, we have a major economic route for the country. It is crucial for prosperity and for jobs that traffic flows freely down this route. Wherever possible, we improve existing routes. When we widen roads, we shall take every care sensitively to look after the environment. We shall not proceed without listening to my hon. Friend's constituents, and we shall do everything possible to mitigate the adverse affects.
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising such an important subject, and I know that we shall return to it and to him. I hope that we can work together to ensure that an important economic route serves the country generally, and my hon. Friend's constituents.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at fifteen minutes past Eleven o'clock.